Soto

[fromthestretch]

Thought this would be best put in Transactions. After seeing some teams get their young players locked in to long-term deals (Tampa Bay has done a good job with this), at what point do you feel the Cubs should explore this with Soto? Do you let him play out a full season first, or are you confident at this stage that he can continue to provide very good offensive production at a key defensive position for the next several years?

[forbez18]

I would let him play out his first full season, and see what condition he comes back next year in. The concern with Soto will be his weight and if he will be able to keep it under control. If he gets lazy after having success his first full year there could be a significant drop off.

[TruffleShuffle]

I would let him play out his first full season, and see what condition he comes back next year in. The concern with Soto will be his weight and if he will be able to keep it under control. If he gets lazy after having success his first full year there could be a significant drop off.

 

i wouldn't worry about that. he got in great shape last year and came back in great shape this year too. he has realized what he has to do to be a good player. and, he knows that he is in line for a big payday if he stays in shape and keeps hitting the way he's been hitting.

 

on a side note, i saw "Soto" in the transactions thread and thought someone was proposing that we trade him. that would've been grounds for an immediate ban.

[fromthestretch]

 

on a side note, i saw "Soto" in the transactions thread and thought someone was proposing that we trade him. that would've been grounds for an immediate ban.

 

I was concerned that someone would think that. By that same token, I also thought that just the name Soto would at least get people to read the discussion. Let's face it, if you don't love Soto, you have no soul.

[davearm2]

There's no urgency. He'd be into his arb years before I'd think about it.

 

Teams do this a) in hopes of saving a few bucks, and b) in order to squeeze an extra year or two out of a guy before they leave.

 

Well the Cubs need not be penny-pinchers, and Greg Maddux is probably the last frontline player that they lost to free agency.

 

It's just not a risk the Cubs should feel they need to take.

[UMFan83]

I don't see the Cubs doing that. Do they have any precedent in doing that? Most teams lock up their young stars because they get them for an extra year or two at a discounted price. The Cubs however, are a large market team that would most likely rather play the arby game, with full confidence that they will be able to buy him when he eventually goes to the open market, which isnt for quite awhile. Besides, by the time hes a FA, he will be a nearly 30 year old catcher.

[fromthestretch]

There's no urgency. He'd be into his arb years before I'd think about it.

 

Teams do this a) in hopes of saving a few bucks, and b) in order to squeeze an extra year or two out of a guy before they leave.

 

Well the Cubs need not be penny-pinchers, and Greg Maddux is probably the last frontline player that they lost to free agency.

 

It's just not a risk the Cubs should feel they need to take.

 

I'm not sure I'd wait until his arb years, especially considering the position he plays. It's not easy to find a good defensive catcher who can hit the crap out the ball, and when one becomes available via free agency, they're either going to be a) extremely expensive, b) at an age where they aren't going to sustain production for much longer, or c) both. If you can save money later on by signing him to a reasonable multi-year deal to carry him through his arb years and maybe a year or two of free agency (perhaps those would be option years), that could free up a little money to help in other areas.

[fromthestretch]

I don't see the Cubs doing that. Do they have any precedent in doing that? Most teams lock up their young stars because they get them for an extra year or two at a discounted price. The Cubs however, are a large market team that would most likely rather play the arby game, with full confidence that they will be able to buy him when he eventually goes to the open market, which isnt for quite awhile. Besides, by the time hes a FA, he will be a nearly 30 year old catcher.

 

No, but then again, I'm not sure if they've really developed the players with which to do that. When I think of teams that had some success with this, I think of the Indians in the 90's when they had Belle, Lofton, Thome, Manny, etc.

 

I'm not saying they should lock him up now, but if he finishes with an OPS in the neighborhood of .900 for the season, it's something to think about. To me, the fact that the Cubs can afford to have a large payroll shouldn't prevent them from taking this approach with their young players when they actually have one that has a shot at being productive for a decent amount of time.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

and just like that, Milwaukee's set to announce a 7 year deal with Braun...

[jersey cubs fan]

He's a catcher, and he doesn't have a long track record of success. I wouldn't look to give him a 6 or 7 year deal, but after this season, I'd strongly consider signing him through arbitration if at all possible.

[shnsajax]

The Cubs have never had a need to do this. They have an incredible record at avoiding arbitration at all cost as well. They don't need to act like Tampa or even the Brewers when handling contracts.

[Tyrant]

Besides, by the time hes a FA, he will be a nearly 30 year old catcher.

 

That's a good point. Once he's done with arbitration years, he's going to be on the decline and will have a lot of miles on him. Catchers just don't last that long, unfortunately.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs have never had a need to do this. They have an incredible record at avoiding arbitration at all cost as well. They don't need to act like Tampa or even the Brewers when handling contracts.

 

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending.

[SouthSideRyan]

Midway through next season if he keeps it up. Get one year of FA, and an option after that.

[CyHawk_Cub]

 

on a side note, i saw "Soto" in the transactions thread and thought someone was proposing that we trade him. that would've been grounds for an immediate ban.

 

I was concerned that someone would think that. By that same token, I also thought that just the name Soto would at least get people to read the discussion. Let's face it, if you don't love Soto, you have no soul.

 

But guys, we could probably get Brian Roberts for him (plus Gallagher + Cedeno + Ascanio). That would be a terrific move!

[davearm2]

The Cubs have never had a need to do this. They have an incredible record at avoiding arbitration at all cost as well. They don't need to act like Tampa or even the Brewers when handling contracts.

 

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending.

There's a risk management element in addition to the fiscal responsibility element.

 

The risk management element points to not offering the extension.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs have never had a need to do this. They have an incredible record at avoiding arbitration at all cost as well. They don't need to act like Tampa or even the Brewers when handling contracts.

 

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending.

There's a risk management element in addition to the fiscal responsibility element.

 

The risk management element points to not offering the extension.

 

There's risk on both ends. Let him go year-to-year and you are a likely to wind up paying a hell of a lot more than if you locked him up early.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Cubs have never had a need to do this. They have an incredible record at avoiding arbitration at all cost as well. They don't need to act like Tampa or even the Brewers when handling contracts.

 

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending.

There's a risk management element in addition to the fiscal responsibility element.

 

The risk management element points to not offering the extension.

 

The risk taken on in these contracts isn't that great. The players sign them because it sets them for life in case of injury or Steve-Blassism. Signing your best young players to these contracts isn't very risky from the team perspective.

[davearm2]

There's risk on both ends. Let him go year-to-year and you are a likely to wind up paying a hell of a lot more than if you locked him up early.

The risk taken on in these contracts isn't that great. The players sign them because it sets them for life in case of injury or Steve-Blassism. Signing your best young players to these contracts isn't very risky from the team perspective.

I think you'd be surprised, guys.

 

Let's use the contract Troy Tulowitzki got -- 6/$31M, with a $15M option on a 7th year -- after finishing second in ROY voting. That contract calls for $5.5M in year 4, $8.5M in year 5, and $10M in year 6.

 

Now let's look at the ROY vote-getters from the year 2002. If these players had been signed to the same deal that Tulowitzki got, they'd have been paid $8.5M last year, and $10M this year.

 

1 Eric Hinske TOR

2 Rodrigo Lopez BAL

3 Jorge Julio BAL

4 Bobby Kielty MIN

4 John Lackey ANA

6 Josh Phelps TOR

7 Kevin Mench TEX

8 Mark Ellis OAK

8 Tony Fiore MIN

8 Dustan Mohr MIN

8 Carlos Pena TOT

1 Jason Jennings COL

2 Brad Wilkerson MON

3 Austin Kearns CIN

4 Kazuhisa Ishii LAD

5 Damian Moss ATL

6 Ryan Jensen SFG

7 Josh Fogg PIT

7 Mark Prior CHC

9 Alex Sanchez MIL

9 Jason Simontacchi STL

9 Dennis Stark COL

 

There's not a single name on that list that you would've wanted for $8.5M last year, or $10M this year.

 

Now the 2003 list. Here you're asking if you'd want the guy for $8.5M this year, and $10M next year:

1 Angel Berroa KCR

2 Hideki Matsui NYY

3 Rocco Baldelli TBD

4 Jody Gerut CLE

5 Mark Teixeira TEX

1 Dontrelle Willis FLA

2 Scott Podsednik MIL

3 Brandon Webb ARI

4 Marlon Byrd PHI

5 Miguel Cabrera FLA

5 Brad Lidge HOU

7 Jeriome Robertson HOU

8 Jose Reyes NYM

8 Ty Wigginton NYM

 

You've got some hits and some misses, but more misses than hits.

 

How many of these guys would you want for $5.5M this year, $8.5M next year, and $10M in 2010?

1 Bobby Crosby OAK

2 Shingo Takatsu CHW

3 Daniel Cabrera BAL

4 Zack Greinke KCR

5 Alexis Rios TOR

6 David DeJesus KCR

7 Ross Gload CHW

8 John Buck KCR

8 David Bush TOR

8 Nate Robertson DET

1 Jason Bay PIT

2 Khalil Greene SDP

3 Akinori Otsuka SDP

4 Aaron Miles COL

5 Matt Holliday COL

6 Kazuo Matsui NYM

6 Terrmel Sledge MON

 

... only maybe 2 or 3.

 

These contracts *are* risky. They represent the chance to save a little if the player continues to play great, or cost a fortune if they head south.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's risk on both ends. Let him go year-to-year and you are a likely to wind up paying a hell of a lot more than if you locked him up early.

The risk taken on in these contracts isn't that great. The players sign them because it sets them for life in case of injury or Steve-Blassism. Signing your best young players to these contracts isn't very risky from the team perspective.

I think you'd be surprised, guys.

 

Let's use the contract Troy Tulowitzki got -- 6/$31M, with a $15M option on a 7th year -- after finishing second in ROY voting. That contract calls for $5.5M in year 4, $8.5M in year 5, and $10M in year 6.

 

Now let's look at the ROY vote-getters from the year 2002. If these players had been signed to the same deal that Tulowitzki got, they'd have been paid $8.5M last year, and $10M this year.

 

1 Eric Hinske TOR

2 Rodrigo Lopez BAL

3 Jorge Julio BAL

4 Bobby Kielty MIN

4 John Lackey ANA

6 Josh Phelps TOR

7 Kevin Mench TEX

8 Mark Ellis OAK

8 Tony Fiore MIN

8 Dustan Mohr MIN

8 Carlos Pena TOT

1 Jason Jennings COL

2 Brad Wilkerson MON

3 Austin Kearns CIN

4 Kazuhisa Ishii LAD

5 Damian Moss ATL

6 Ryan Jensen SFG

7 Josh Fogg PIT

7 Mark Prior CHC

9 Alex Sanchez MIL

9 Jason Simontacchi STL

9 Dennis Stark COL

 

There's not a single name on that list that you would've wanted for $8.5M last year, or $10M this year.

 

Now the 2003 list. Here you're asking if you'd want the guy for $8.5M this year, and $10M next year:

1 Angel Berroa KCR

2 Hideki Matsui NYY

3 Rocco Baldelli TBD

4 Jody Gerut CLE

5 Mark Teixeira TEX

1 Dontrelle Willis FLA

2 Scott Podsednik MIL

3 Brandon Webb ARI

4 Marlon Byrd PHI

5 Miguel Cabrera FLA

5 Brad Lidge HOU

7 Jeriome Robertson HOU

8 Jose Reyes NYM

8 Ty Wigginton NYM

 

You've got some hits and some misses, but more misses than hits.

 

How many of these guys would you want for $5.5M this year, $8.5M next year, and $10M in 2010?

1 Bobby Crosby OAK

2 Shingo Takatsu CHW

3 Daniel Cabrera BAL

4 Zack Greinke KCR

5 Alexis Rios TOR

6 David DeJesus KCR

7 Ross Gload CHW

8 John Buck KCR

8 David Bush TOR

8 Nate Robertson DET

1 Jason Bay PIT

2 Khalil Greene SDP

3 Akinori Otsuka SDP

4 Aaron Miles COL

5 Matt Holliday COL

6 Kazuo Matsui NYM

6 Terrmel Sledge MON

 

... only maybe 2 or 3.

 

These contracts *are* risky. They represent the chance to save a little if the player continues to play great, or cost a fortune if they head south.

 

Basing this on rookie of the year votes is completely nonsensical.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He's a catcher, and he doesn't have a long track record of success. I wouldn't look to give him a 6 or 7 year deal, but after this season, I'd strongly consider signing him through arbitration if at all possible.

 

So not 6 or 7, but 5?

[davearm2]

Basing this on rookie of the year votes is completely nonsensical.

How would you go about compiling a list of the players that showed the most potential to be worthy of a longterm extension after one year in the bigleagues?

[davearm2]

He's a catcher, and he doesn't have a long track record of success. I wouldn't look to give him a 6 or 7 year deal, but after this season, I'd strongly consider signing him through arbitration if at all possible.

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all.

 

You've got him controlled through arbitration already. The only thing you'd gain is cost certainty. As I've illustrated, that's a game in which you can win a little, or lose a lot.

 

Buying a few free agent years is the most reasonable motivation for these early extensions, and that shouldn't be a major concern for a team like the Cubs, who have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

[fromthestretch]

Basing this on rookie of the year votes is completely nonsensical.

How would you go about compiling a list of the players that showed the most potential to be worthy of a longterm extension after one year in the bigleagues?

 

I would think scouting, injury history, and their minor league numbers would play a role in it. No one is saying that every young player that has a good first season is worth a long-term deal, and of course, not every deal will work out for the benefit of the team. However, I think it would be stupid to not at least explore the option if all signs point to the guy being a productive player over the next 4-5 years.

[fromthestretch]

He's a catcher, and he doesn't have a long track record of success. I wouldn't look to give him a 6 or 7 year deal, but after this season, I'd strongly consider signing him through arbitration if at all possible.

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all.

 

 

Not if he continues to hit put up a .900+ OPS as a catcher. If that happens, the Cubs might be better off negotiating a deal that carries him through arbitration. You can add option years for free agency.