2024-25 MLB Hot Stove thread

[miami_fan]

I don't like the proposed rule but I'll be the contrarian.

If having a pitcher hit was the worst thing in the world and the rules were changed to kick them out of the batter's box in favor of a better hitter, is it that much of a stretch to try and figure out how to get out the Oswaldo Cabreras of the world out of the batter's box in favor of the Juan Sotos of the world? My guess is the same number of people that would prefer seeing Oswaldo Cabrera hit over Gerrit Cole would also prefer seeing Juan Soto hit over Oswaldo Cabrera.

[Solecismic]

If the argument rests upon "I'll assume people who support A also support B, so I'll argue against B rather than against A", then the response is to question that assumption rather than the original question.

The argument in favor of the DH is twofold. First, pitchers don't pitch every day and their specialty requires so much training that they rarely learn to become good hitters after high school. There have been notable exceptions, like George Brett's brother. And second, it became rare to complete games and pitchers were trained to throw every pitch harder, and then it became more and more frequent to use three or four pitchers in a game. So it was harder to think of the ninth spot as anything but a pinch-hitter spot in the first place. The game evolved to make the DH make sense.

This is about a specific alteration in how a batting order or lineup works. Similar alterations would be along the lines of allowing a pitcher to return to the game to pitch to a specific batter or having teams start an inning with a runner on base (I refuse to accept that one as legitimate).

[miami_fan]

My understanding of the origins of the DH is that it was much simpler than that. Having a DH would lead to increased offensive production and increased offensive production was/is perceived to be more entertaining. I am not saying that specialization, lack of complete games etc. did not contribute to the adoption of the DH as time went on. I am saying the main goal was to be more entertaining. If it is about being more entertaining, then I can see why someone would want to continue down the road from the game of nine players in the field and the same nine players in the batting line to one that replaces the pitcher with a DH to one that allows for a golden at bat.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't like the proposed rule but I'll be the contrarian.

If having a pitcher hit was the worst thing in the world and the rules were changed to kick them out of the batter's box in favor of a better hitter, is it that much of a stretch to try and figure out how to get out the Oswaldo Cabreras of the world out of the batter's box in favor of the Juan Sotos of the world? My guess is the same number of people that would prefer seeing Oswaldo Cabrera hit over Gerrit Cole would also prefer seeing Juan Soto hit over Oswaldo Cabrera.

The way to do this is to go with an offense and a defense like football. You would still have a set order instead of throwing in whoever you want whenever you want (yes, in that one situation). Think of the gloves that have never played because they couldn't hit. The trouble with this, besides owners having to pay more players, and it might decrease offense so could never be done. Or maybe nine superior hitters would be able to maintain, or even increase, offensive production even while facing only superior gloves? IDK.
Back to the cost... Imagine owners paying those extra players and of course "how much is a "Brooks or Ozzie" glove worth if that player can only play defense?

Don't take this as I would support or want an offense and a defense.

[Young Drachma]

The Finnish variant of baseball, pesäpallo has a version of this "golden at bat" in a much more rational way. They're called jokers, each lineup has 3 of them AND every team still has a pitcher that hits. You can use any of your jokers in the lineup in any inning to replace the next batter in the order, so it becomes a lot more tactical.

It's not that weird, games aren't that much more high scoring, but it's also a completely different sport than baseball --though similar. It would defeat the purpose of the golden at-bat per se, but it would mean lineups could have 2 more DHs for various tactical things. Like pesis has a speedster joker, a power hitting one, and one that's good at advancing runners, but you can't just hit the ball out of the park in Finnish baseball without it bouncing so...that's part of the difference too.

Just saying I have a huge data sample of watching how this basically plays out.

[Ksyrup]

Softball allows players to return to the lineup/position (including pitchers) one time. I've gotten used to that given both my kids played. With slapping/bunting, frequent stolen bases, and a limited number of pitchers, it makes some sense and definitely increases the strategy quotient of the game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Softball allows players to return to the lineup/position (including pitchers) one time. I've gotten used to that given both my kids played. With slapping/bunting, frequent stolen bases, and a limited number of pitchers, it makes some sense and definitely increases the strategy quotient of the game.

The bunting thing is infuriating and so far from what I have seen idiotic.

We played a team in our travel teams league title game that tried it. Our pitcher is completely lights out and they kept either missing or tipping. Their coach was putting them in 0-2 counts almost every AB. Of the 18 outs she struck out 16. The other 2 outs were by my daughter, the catcher, fielding them and throwing down to first.

I was like, just swing the damn bat.

[Ksyrup]

Dude, it not only doesn't get better at the college level, it gets WORSE.

Both of Caitlin's college coaches bunted at every opportunity. Sometimes with no one out and the bases loaded. Often early in the game just to try to get a run. It would infuriate me to see a pitcher walk the leadoff batter in the 1st inning on 4 or 5 pitches and then we'd give up an out (at lower levels, not even guaranteeing the runner to advance) with the second and/or third batter just to move a runner to 2nd or 3rd and still not score. Or, down 3 runs in the 5th or 6th, and giving up outs to move runners to try to score a run to get to within 2 runs with like 4 or 5 outs left.

[Lathum]

I'm sure it only gets worse, they learn it somewhere.

What sucks also is my daughter is freakishly fast so they will probably do it alot.

[Ksyrup]

She should learn to slap if she's not already. We did that with all of our fast players, LH or not. If nothing else, it's another skill set for recruiting.

[Lathum]

I think she is a little young for that, plus she hits bombs so not sure she should be going all Willie Mays Hayes

[Ksyrup]

If they have power and speed, even better. There's nothing better than a power slapper putting one over the drawn-in OF, or being able to drop one in if they play back. But I get it. If she's the middle of the lineup, they aren't going to want to use her that way.

Didn't you say she was around 11? That's the age to learn to slap. Especially righties, so it becomes like second nature by their HS years.

[Lathum]

Yeah. She’s 11 and bats clean up.

[SirFozzie]

I want to grab Red Sox fandom by the collective scruff of their neck and tell them that none of this press shit really matters. It's manipulating fans.

Red Sox Spin: "Red Sox want meeting with Boras to set once and for all a "Deal gets done" price". Why would Boras do anything like this? If he names a price and it gets done, then how much more could he have received by playing it off more?

Boras Spin: "Insider for MLB team says his team is favorite." This works as two things for Boras, one, it motivates other teams to up the bid because their fans will put pressure on them, and it puts pressure on that team's fans.. after all, you don't want to be the team that was THIS close to signing a generational piece and left out, right?

I've been down on the red sox spending, but I don't think you can blame them if Soto falls through.. it's not like OOTP or MLB the Show, where you give them a number, they say yes, it's over. There are living, breathing people on the other side, and more factors than just years/$$$. You don't give a more than $600 million offer if you're not serious about spending.

What I DO want from the Red Sox is no matter how the Soto sweepstakes ends, they have an idea on the next steps and pivot to them immediately. Pitching is still the #1 need.

(and at risk of getting dogpiled, I said it last year with Ohtani, but it just boggles my mind we're in the $700 million era, and my reflexive action is to say "We could get more from 3 $233 million players than one $700 million player", but that's just my view.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

"We could get more from 3 $233 million players than one $700 million player", but that's just my view.

But could you?

Using this list there are only a handful of players signed to contracts even +/- 10% of 233 million

Stephen Strasburg 245m 7 yrs
Anthony Rendon 245m 7 yrs
Christian Yelich 215m 9 yrs
Austin Riley 212m 10 yrs
Julio Rodriguez 209m (a tiny fraction under 10% below but what's a million at these prices? ) 12 yrs

So to get three contracts at that level, without overpaying, requires three players worth contracts of that amount AND those kinds of length AND to be available for signing at the same time (+/- a year let's say). Not sure how easy it'd be to do that.

[Swaggs]

Man, I knew he was young, but I didn't realize that Soto is only going into his age 26 season. Sounds like he wants the 10+ year contract, but I'd probably be a little tempted to do something like a 5 or 6 year at a ridiculously high AAV and hit FA again as a 31-year old looking for that 10 year deal.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Man, I knew he was young, but I didn't realize that Soto is only going into his age 26 season. Sounds like he wants the 10+ year contract, but I'd probably be a little tempted to do something like a 5 or 6 year at a ridiculously high AAV and hit FA again as a 31-year old looking for that 10 year deal.

The current rumor is 15/720+

[Ksyrup]

The A's signed Luis Severino out of the blue at 3 years, $67M. It's the largest contract they've ever given to a player, just surpassing the 6 year, $66M deal with Eric Chavez in 2004 (who wasn't a FA). That's insane.

Even better is that he likely won't ever play for the A's in LV. It was an overpay, but when you're signing up for 1 to 3 years of playing in a minor league oven, I suppose you expect a premium to be paid for your services.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The current rumor is 15/720+

So $48M per year. It seems crazy. I guess you have figure: are you more likely to get 7-10 WAR from him than you are 3-4 guys that are making $12-15M and the answer is not so clear, depending on luck and injury. But the upside is getting that all from one position and rolling the dice on other, cheaper (possibly minimum salary) guys at the other spots.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

So $48M per year. It seems crazy. I guess you have figure: are you more likely to get 7-10 WAR from him than you are 3-4 guys that are making $12-15M and the answer is not so clear, depending on luck and injury. But the upside is getting that all from one position and rolling the dice on other, cheaper (possibly minimum salary) guys at the other spots.

A lot is how well a team does at developing players. If you have entry level guys in your farm system who give you positive WAR, it makes sense to go with a stud. The good teams tend to always have soms guys who can can contribute.

[Ksyrup]

Also I wonder if everyone else is going to get on the deferral train with the Dodgers.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

My understanding of the origins of the DH is that it was much simpler than that. Having a DH would lead to increased offensive production and increased offensive production was/is perceived to be more entertaining. I am not saying that specialization, lack of complete games etc. did not contribute to the adoption of the DH as time went on. I am saying the main goal was to be more entertaining. If it is about being more entertaining, then I can see why someone would want to continue down the road from the game of nine players in the field and the same nine players in the batting line to one that replaces the pitcher with a DH to one that allows for a golden at bat.

Sure, those were the origins. Coming after the late '60s and the mound change not having the desired effect on offense. Complete games were still the norm for top starters. In the early '70s, you'd still see the occasional ace complete 30 games in a season - more than the entire league collectively compiled last season.

But, it was called an experiment, and the Ron Blomberg types were ridiculed for a long time. NL fans vowed they would never give in. It became an evolution thing, and the NL was the only holdout for ages.

[miami_fan]

Per Jeff Passan,

Soto to the Mets. 15yrs/$765M.

[Ksyrup]

That's a thing that happens to rich people.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Per Jeff Passan,

Soto to the Mets. 15yrs/$765M.

Hell yes

[SirFozzie]

Congrats to Soto, that's an insane price.

[Lathum]

Boom!!!

[Ksyrup]

Interestingly, no deferred money. He's got an opt-out in 5 years but the Mets can buy it out by adding $4M/year for the rest of the contract which essentially would add $40M and make the deal worth $805M.

Given the size of the contract, another $40M starting in 6 years doesn't seem like much of an obstacle. Seems like there are only few scenarios in which he would want to opt out but the Mets would let him go. I wonder if that was added more for Boras than Soto?

[Lathum]

Apparently the Yankees offered the same amount but over 16 years not 15 and they didn't add the option. If Soto really wanted to be a Yankee at that point does the difference matter?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Apparently the Yankees offered the same amount but over 16 years not 15 and they didn't add the option. If Soto really wanted to be a Yankee at that point does the difference matter?

If he had a different agent maybe, but you hire Boras to get you every dollar possible.

[GrantDawg]

Max Fried to the Yankees. 8 years, $218 million dollars.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Ghost Econ]

It's Fried, it's more like 4 years.

[PilotMan]

Will his arm last that long?

[Ksyrup]

His arm will be max fried well before that contract ends.

[GrantDawg]

They will get three good seasons out of him. Broken up in chunks over the 8 years.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I wonder if Jerry Reinsdorf will be staying at any Hiltons any time soon...

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Apparently the Yankees offered the same amount but over 16 years not 15 and they didn't add the option. If Soto really wanted to be a Yankee at that point does the difference matter?

Mets gave him and his family a free suite. Yankees make everyone pay for one, even Judge and Jeter apparently

[Lathum]

Devin Williams to the Yankees giving them another playoff choker to go along with Judge.

[Lathum]

Mets bring back Manaea 3/75 giving them their front end guy to go with Senga coming back hopefully healthy. Now have to sign Amonso and would love to see them bring back Winker.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Mets bring back Manaea 3/75 giving them their front end guy to go with Senga coming back hopefully healthy. Now have to sign Amonso and would love to see them bring back Winker.

Mets supposedly have a 3 year 90 mil offer with opt outs after each year on the table for Pete but Boras is holding out for a long term $200 million deal.

[RainMaker]

I know it won't happen but Alonso would madh at Wrigley.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Mets supposedly have a 3 year 90 mil offer with opt outs after each year on the table for Pete but Boras is holding out for a long term $200 million deal.

Pete’s not getting 200 million.