Softballhuman

Yes.  The player contracts do matter because a potential owner is calculating the level of “equity” or “inequity” in the financial obligation they are acquiring.
Trout at $1 per year is a massive asset while Trout at $99m a year is not.
The buyer is going to pay a higher price for a franchise the more “equity” there is in the group of contracts they acquire.
The higher the price they pay, the higher the amount they can depreciate over the first 15 years of their ownership.
So it seems like there is a misunderstanding.  A new doesn’t “get to” depreciate the big contracts (as if big contracts help the new owner).
They “get to” depreciate a portion of the purchase price of the team, where the overall level of “equity” or “inequity” in the contracts they acquire have an effect on the purchase price.

Yes, this is true also.  Which is why usually in team sales, you see teams unloading contracts, and not adding big ones.  Because Trouts $400 million owed (I don't know what he is still owed, just putting the number out), is a liability for the team.  And why they probably won't add another $500 million in Ohtani.  So while a team may sell for $2.2 billion.  Behind it all, he'll get $1.8 billion or less after liabilities are deducted.  Kind of like if you are selling your house.  You may sell your house for $1 million.  But if you owe $900k in mortgage, you will only get $100k.  Which is why now is the time for Moreno to sell.  Before he sinks a lot into a stadium that will marginally increase the team value.  I.e. spending $100k on a new pool, that will only increase the selling price by $5k.