Over the weekend, Shohei Ohtani secured the most substantial deal in North American professional sports history, leading Jon Heyman to assert that this is a positive development for baseball due to his signing with a "marquee baseball team." Heyman argued, “Ultimately, it’s better for baseball that Ohtani signed with a marquee franchise.” However, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Heyman's perspective.

Fellow baseball writer Ken Rosenthal, utilizing his platform in The Athletic (which is owned by the New York Times), contended, “It would be difficult for anyone to argue baseball is broken. If anything, baseball appears headed for a renaissance. And Shohei Ohtani, the sport’s biggest star and the most transcendent figure, is the reason the game is creating more buzz than at any point in recent years and maybe decades.”

Rosenthal went on to suggest that Ohtani’s impact on baseball wouldn’t have been as significant if he had signed with the Toronto Blue Jays because, as he stated, "television ratings in Canada do not count in the U.S., major networks such as Fox, ESPN, and TBS might have been reluctant to carry Jays games during the regular season, even with Ohtani. And while fans still could have watched Ohtani through the MLB app, the exposure just would not have been the same.”

I appreciate this perspective. However, Ohtani's signing with the Blue Jays could have had a more significant impact on baseball beyond the monetary aspect of his contract. The potential effects on television ratings, network coverage, and overall exposure for the Blue Jays could indeed have been noteworthy. Perhaps ESPN, Fox, and TBS might have started to carry more Blue Jays games, altering the landscape and having a more significant positive impact on the sport of baseball than the amount of Ohtani’s contract.

Shouldn’t success be measured by how many fans are passionate or want to attend baseball games, akin to the NFL's approach to helping the sport grow, even in small-market cities?

While recognizing the influence of capitalism and the financial aspects of the game, I can't help but ponder the greatness that arises when the focus shifts from monetary gains to intangible elements. I acknowledge the impracticality of completely divorcing baseball from its business aspect, but envisioning a scenario where Ohtani chose a small-market team, thereby bringing additional attention and revenue to those cities, is intriguing.

What if more stories of small-market players were highlighted and featured instead of all the big player names who play in the big markets?

The allure of sports lies in the narratives of players, the memorable moments, the gameplay, and the overall experience, rather than just the players' salaries. "Small-market" teams often contribute significantly to what makes baseball truly great, contrary to Mr. Heyman's assertion. Apologies, but I believe his argument is misguided. Ohtani signing with a prominent franchise might not be as advantageous for baseball as suggested—it may diminish the unique charm that smaller market teams bring to the sport.

Taking Heyman’s stance to its logical conclusion implies the elimination of all teams outside major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago—a perspective that seems narrow-minded and, in my opinion, is detrimental to the essence of baseball and the broader media landscape.

I don’t fault Ohtani for getting the money/contract that he deserves. Good for him. He knows his value and went out and got it. That’s the American Dream for you right there. Love it or hate it. That’s what makes America great.

I don’t fault the Los Angeles Dodgers offering or having the resources to give him that amount. Good for them.

What bothers me is the prevailing perspective that Baseball is only considered great when large-market teams are successful. This notion is not only dull but also limits the true essence and potential of the sport. Mr. Heyman, in projecting an old-school perspective, seems to overlook the evolving landscape of baseball.

This perspective operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The belief that only big-name teams can make baseball great becomes a limiting factor. When these prominent teams are absent from the World Series, it's assumed that interest dwindles, and viewership declines. However, this mindset prevents us from recognizing the richness and excitement that smaller market teams and emerging talents can bring to the game.

Looking forward, it's essential to appreciate the diversity of teams and players that contribute to the sport's greatness. Celebrating success should not be confined to the traditional powerhouses but extended to the entire spectrum of baseball. By embracing this broader perspective, we can unlock new narratives, showcase fresh talent, and ensure that baseball's appeal transcends the limitations of a narrow, outdated mindset.

The Nats Report is a reader-supported independent project that offers free and paid subscriptions. The Nats Report is not affiliated with the Washington Nationals.

Those who opt for the paid edition are providing vital assistance to bolster our independent coverage of the Washington Nationals and Major League Baseball.