Around Baseball 2026

[Laika]

 

 

[jaysblue]

1 minute ago, Laika said:

 

 

Yeah I think the Mets figured they had to keep Bo away from Philly at all costs, especially after they missed out on Tucker signing with the Dodgers. 

Definitely a panic signing IMO. 

[Brownie19]

1 minute ago, jaysblue said:

Yeah I think the Mets figured they had to keep Bo away from Philly at all costs, especially after they missed out on Tucker signing with the Dodgers. 

Definitely a panic signing IMO. 

You're buying 3 of Bo's prime years (28-30) without having to overpay him during his declining years.  $42M is perfectly acceptable.  I don't think this is an overpay at all.  I think it's a great deal for the Mets.

[jaysblue]

6 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

You're buying 3 of Bo's prime years (28-30) without having to overpay him during his declining years.  $42M is perfectly acceptable.  I don't think this is an overpay at all.  I think it's a great deal for the Mets.

Never said it was an overpay. 

I agree with the logic. You’re effectively paying for three prime seasons (ages 28–30) without committing to the back end of a long-term deal, where the risk of decline is highest. At $42M, that’s reasonable for that level of production on a short term deal, and I wouldn’t consider it an overpay.

I meant “panic” more in the sense of missing out on Tucker and wanting to prevent Bo from signing with the Phillies, which is why the Mets stepped in with a higher AAV.

[Brownie19]

20 minutes ago, jaysblue said:

Never said it was an overpay. 

I agree with the logic. You’re effectively paying for three prime seasons (ages 28–30) without committing to the back end of a long-term deal, where the risk of decline is highest. At $42M, that’s reasonable for that level of production on a short term deal, and I wouldn’t consider it an overpay.

I meant “panic” more in the sense of missing out on Tucker and wanting to prevent Bo from signing with the Phillies, which is why the Mets stepped in with a higher AAV.

I'm sorry - in my world a "panic move" suggests something negative.  I don't think this is negative for the Mets in any way.  Reasonable price and it makes them better.

I wish Atkins made this panic move.

[jaysblue]

6 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

I'm sorry - in my world a "panic move" is a suggests something negative.  I don't think this is negative for the Mets in any way.  Reasonable price and it makes them better.

I wish Atkins made this panic move.

Fair enough. I probably should’ve been clearer with the wording. I didn’t mean “panic” as a negative in terms of value or impact. I agree it’s a reasonable deal and clearly makes the Mets better. My point was more about the timing (Tucker signing with the Dodgers and the Bo/Phillies rumours) and context of the move - especially given that they already had Lindor and Semien locked into the middle infield, with Polanco at first base. It’s still a lot of money, though, and a high AAV like that for a player like Bo can understandably make some people uncomfortable.

Otherwise, the short-term, high AAV outweighs the long-term risk.

[Laika]

Maybe the era of the 10 year contract is over, aside from true Superstars? Teams have seen how agonizing some of those deals become and want no part of them - they would rather almost double the short term AAVs. 

[Orgfiller]

15 minutes ago, Laika said:

Maybe the era of the 10 year contract is over, aside from true Superstars? Teams have seen how agonizing some of those deals become and want no part of them - they would rather almost double the short term AAVs. 

I'm not sure there's many teams in the league that can get away with the contracts the Dodgers and Mets are offering some of these guys. Even with the luxury tax being a factor, the Mets and Dodgers are spitting in the face of it and willing to pay more than double per dollar in those short term high AAV deals. This made sense when these deals were given out to starters particularly older ones, but for mid prime star position players this is pretty unheard of. Lowering the CBT hit by artificially lowering the AAV with more years is still something a lot of teams would likely prefer over paying significant premiums for the luxury tax.

[Laika]

In a lot of ways these short term high AAV contracts JUST MAKE MORE SENSE. 

The old standard for desirable players was you hook them on some long term contract that UNDERPAYS THEM immediately in exchange for OVERPAYING THEM at the end. 

Why? Who decided to do that? Did the teams want to stretch out the money? Did the players prefer predictability and security? Did nobody care about the politics of the last few years? 

Bo Bichette projects for about 4 WAR. We know the market price of one win, for most player archetypes, is up over $10M now. $42M makes sense. He is expected to be worth that in 2026, and perhaps also 2027 and 2028 given his age. It's not really a "deal" for the team or the player in the immediate term. 

How much will he be worth from 2029 onward, when he is 31+? Who the f*** knows. Why pay for him so far in the future? Especially give his hacker plate discipline, lower tier athleticism, and injuries in recent years. 

[Laika]

3 minutes ago, Orgfiller said:

I'm not sure there's many teams in the league that can get away with the contracts the Dodgers and Mets are offering some of these guys. Even with the luxury tax being a factor, the Mets and Dodgers are spitting in the face of it and willing to pay more than double per dollar in those short term high AAV deals. This made sense when these deals were given out to starters particularly older ones, but for mid prime star position players this is pretty unheard of. Lowering the CBT hit by artificially lowering the AAV with more years is still something a lot of teams would likely prefer over paying significant premiums for the luxury tax.

It's definitely a novel tactic that only the richer teams can use. 

The gaps widen. 

[Carlos Danger]

JT back to the Phillies is looks like...

[philly30]

6 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

JT back to the Phillies is looks like...

Horrible, 3 years 45, I am just going to join the dark side and root for the Dodgers

[Laika]

2 minutes ago, philly30 said:

Horrible, 3 years 45, I am just going to join the dark side and root for the Dodgers

he's worth that lol it's fine 

[Eat My Shatkins]

LOL nice panic move by a s*** organization. Lose Tucker so they overpay for a 2B/SS when those spots are already covered only to probably shoe horn him into 3B. No wonder these clowns can't even make a Wild Card spot with a $300+ million payroll.

[jaysblue]

1 hour ago, Laika said:

In a lot of ways these short term high AAV contracts JUST MAKE MORE SENSE. 

The old standard for desirable players was you hook them on some long term contract that UNDERPAYS THEM immediately in exchange for OVERPAYING THEM at the end. 

Why? Who decided to do that? Did the teams want to stretch out the money? Did the players prefer predictability and security? Did nobody care about the politics of the last few years? 

Bo Bichette projects for about 4 WAR. We know the market price of one win, for most player archetypes, is up over $10M now. $42M makes sense. He is expected to be worth that in 2026, and perhaps also 2027 and 2028 given his age. It's not really a "deal" for the team or the player in the immediate term. 

How much will he be worth from 2029 onward, when he is 31+? Who the f*** knows. Why pay for him so far in the future? Especially give his hacker plate discipline, lower tier athleticism, and injuries in recent years. 

I think this is exactly where the market is heading. Short-term, high-AAV deals are starting to make more sense for both sides, especially for players whose value is concentrated in their prime years. You’re paying for what you reasonably expect to get, rather than guessing what a player might look like at 31–35 and hoping the back end doesn’t hurt too much.

For teams, it reduces long-term downside and keeps payroll flexibility. For players, it maximizes earnings when they’re closest to peak performance and avoids being locked into below-market AAVs early in their careers. There also seems to be a growing comfort on both sides with less predictability but cleaner risk allocation.

Pitchers are probably the exception here. Given how prone they are to serious injuries and surgeries, it makes sense that many still prefer the security of longer-term deals rather than short-term, high-AAV contracts.

[jaysblue]

43 minutes ago, Eat My Shatkins said:

LOL nice panic move by a s*** organization. Lose Tucker so they overpay for a 2B/SS when those spots are already covered only to probably shoe horn him into 3B. No wonder these clowns can't even make a Wild Card spot with a $300+ million payroll.

I'm shocked they didn't go after Bellinger instead. He fits their roster better. 

Like I mentioned earlier, the Mets likely made this move more in response to the Bo–Phillies rumors.

[John_Havok]

So the Tucker deal...

64 million of the total is a signing bonus, 54 million of which is paid in 2026.

Dude is getting paid close to 100 million dollars for next season

[jaysblue]

56 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

So the Tucker deal...

64 million of the total is a signing bonus, 54 million of which is paid in 2026.

Dude is getting paid close to 100 million dollars for next season

Okamoto would have sold more jerseys for the Dodgers at a fraction of the cost lol. 

[L54]

This is what happens when the union reps are the same guys with nine figure contracts 

Max, Lindor, Semien off the top of my head 

While these huge AAV short term deals are great for elite free agents it feels like lower end players will have their contracts suppressed 

[glory]

The MLBPA never cared about the non-star or younger players. They care about the top 1% being able to work in a free market. The last CBA was actually rejected by the 8 subcommittee members (Scherzer was one of them). It was the individual player reps that approved it.

[L54]

1 hour ago, glory said:

The MLBPA never cared about the non-star or younger players. They care about the top 1% being able to work in a free market. The last CBA was actually rejected by the 8 subcommittee members (Scherzer was one of them). It was the individual player reps that approved it.

Right which is ironic because the sentiment in baseball media is that if you don’t like 60M AAV for 4 win Kyle Tucker you’re simping for the billionaire owners

 

[Nexii]

6 hours ago, Laika said:

Maybe the era of the 10 year contract is over, aside from true Superstars? Teams have seen how agonizing some of those deals become and want no part of them - they would rather almost double the short term AAVs. 

Really seems like it. I wonder if anyone can do a breakdown but it feels like hardly anyone has been signed for their age 36+ seasons.

[glory]

1 hour ago, L54 said:

Right which is ironic because the sentiment in baseball media is that if you don’t like 60M AAV for 4 win Kyle Tucker you’re simping for the billionaire owners

 

The MLBPA trying to get fan support during the lockout this time around is going to be interesting to watch because I think it's gotten to the point where the fans are going to side with the owners. Not because they are simping for them, but because the inequity has gotten so large that fans won't give a s*** which side benefits from a players vs owners battle and focus on what is the best outcome for them personally. The NFL is the undisputed king of the major US sports, with arguably the least favorable CBA for the players, and I've never seen/heard one fan complain about that. They just love football and the system in place. It's going to get to that point with MLB. Whether they institute a cap is a different story (probably not), but I don't think fan support for the players is going to be there this time around. 

[Buster]

1 hour ago, glory said:

The MLBPA trying to get fan support during the lockout this time around is going to be interesting to watch because I think it's gotten to the point where the fans are going to side with the owners. Not because they are simping for them, but because the inequity has gotten so large that fans won't give a s*** which side benefits from a players vs owners battle and focus on what is the best outcome for them personally. The NFL is the undisputed king of the major US sports, with arguably the least favorable CBA for the players, and I've never seen/heard one fan complain about that. They just love football and the system in place. It's going to get to that point with MLB. Whether they institute a cap is a different story (probably not), but I don't think fan support for the players is going to be there this time around. 

Owners winning a collective bargaining negotiation is better for the fans, almost universally.    Players winning is almost universally bad for the fans.

Players winning is effectively a win for the richest teams.  Owners winning is a win for the best run teams.  

 

[L54]

2 hours ago, glory said:

The MLBPA trying to get fan support during the lockout this time around is going to be interesting to watch because I think it's gotten to the point where the fans are going to side with the owners. Not because they are simping for them, but because the inequity has gotten so large that fans won't give a s*** which side benefits from a players vs owners battle and focus on what is the best outcome for them personally. The NFL is the undisputed king of the major US sports, with arguably the least favorable CBA for the players, and I've never seen/heard one fan complain about that. They just love football and the system in place. It's going to get to that point with MLB. Whether they institute a cap is a different story (probably not), but I don't think fan support for the players is going to be there this time around. 

There’s no question fans are going to be siding with the owners this time around. They are understandably tired of watching every marquee free agent wind up in LA who are clearly treating the luxury tax as an expense and not a deterrent 

I’ve wondered how players actually feel about this and saw Passan said this tonight 

No s*** some of them feel like that. Anthony Rendon is an anomaly - most guys want to win. Like really want to win. I can’t imagine being guys in San Diego or Philly and seeing Queen Tuck wind up in LA. A lot of eye rolls I’m sure 

[G-Snarls]

Elly De La Cruz Declined Franchise-Record Offer From Reds In 2025

January 16th, 2026 at 10:33pm CST • By Anthony Franco

The Reds made an unsuccessful effort at locking up Elly De La Cruz last spring. While details were sparse at the time, president of baseball operations Nick Krall revealed today the team made an official offer that would have topped their 10-year, $225MM franchise-record deal with Joey Votto.

“We made Elly an offer that would’ve made him the highest-paid Red ever,” Krall said.

[G-Snarls]

[Stangstag]

7 hours ago, L54 said:

This is what happens when the union reps are the same guys with nine figure contracts 

Max, Lindor, Semien off the top of my head 

While these huge AAV short term deals are great for elite free agents it feels like lower end players will have their contracts suppressed 

I think Skubal is one also. No conflict of interest there lol

[Sorrow]

I personally don’t want a cap but want a stricter or more punishing penalty system for going over and I’d also like a reverse luxury tax for going below a floor.

I think that the luxury tax threshold should just be one level and it’s like a ladder that if you pass it you suffer the penalty for a season past the year you went onto it. As an example if you pass it for a part of one season you loose maybe half your international bonus pool and pay a financial penalty, for a second season an increased penalty, half your bonus pool and your first round pick and any compensation picks, third season add losing your first round pick and full bonus pool as well as being banned from signing players via the posting system. Then once you drop below you start working down the ladder so if you were on for three years you repeat that third year penalty and then start climbing down. In reverse if you go below you loose your revenue sharing on year one, international bonus pool and compensation picks on top of the revenue sharing year two and year three add the first round pick and a financial penalty double what you’re below the threshold, year four MLB takes over your team and forces a sale.

[Nexii]

Revenue sharing already looks pretty significant in MLB? Something like 200M per team, is that really true?

It seems the issue is teams not spending their revenue sharing. They should lose every dollar that they don't spend on salaries, IMO. If they did I'm not sure you'd really even need a luxury tax.