Soto

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

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?

Yes, I'd strongly consider it. 5 is less than 6 or 7, and would put him in his late 20's with 6 full seasons of catching duty, and all the wear and tear that suggests.

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

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.

This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

David · May 15, 2008

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.

This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

Does it really matter if they're home-grown or not? Ramirez, Lee, Wood (when he looked poised to enter his prime after 03), etc...

CubinNY · May 15, 2008

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.

This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

They kept Santo, Banks, and Williams.

Or sorry, you meant after the reserve clause was amended.

Yea, I don't know anyone besides Grace who they've kept around.

CubinNY · May 15, 2008

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.

This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

Does it really matter if they're home-grown or not? Ramirez, Lee, Wood (when he looked poised to enter his prime after 03), etc...

Apples and Oranges.

David · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

CubinNY · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

Not really, not really. You're taking about that. Gonny is talking about keeping a guy before he reaches free agency through the first couple of years of FA.

Signing a guy to a "home town" discount with a no-trade clause is not the same as buying out a couple of years of arbitration/free agency.

David · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them?

The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it.

David · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

Not really, not really. You're taking about that. Gonny is talking about keeping a guy before he reaches free agency through the first couple of years of FA.

Signing a guy to a "home town" discount with a no-trade clause is not the same as buying out a couple of years of arbitration/free agency.

No. Davearm2 made the point that there's really no need to buyout the first couple years of free agency and lock yourself into that sort of deal at this point when the Cubs have a track record of keeping their guys anyway (both through arbitration years and free agency), to which goony responded that there can't be any such track record when the Cubs haven't developed anybody on their own.

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them?

The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it.

The point is you save money, allowed you to spend more money elsewhere.

davearm2 · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them?

The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it.

The point is you save money, allowed you to spend more money elsewhere.

You might save a little, 4 years down the road, but you won't save a lot.

The flipside is, you could have a guy that's out of baseball that you're paying $6 or $8M.

davearm2 · May 15, 2008

Not really.

You're talking about keeping guys around when they reach free agency. It really matters little how they got there.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them?

The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it.

This.

Key guys that are approaching free agency, the Cubs have gotten extended. It's a rule without exception. Sosa, Wood, Lee, Ramirez (twice), Zambrano.

Homegrown or not homegrown is irrelevant to the topic.

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime.

These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security.

All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).

davearm2 · May 15, 2008

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime.

These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security.

All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).

This completely misses the point.

The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency.

Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee.

Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years.

Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here (last arb year + 2 FA years).

Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him.

jersey cubs fan · May 15, 2008

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime.

These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security.

All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).
This completely misses the point.

The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency.

Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee.

Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years.

Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here.

Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him.

Except the incentive of paying less in the long run.

Magnetic Curses · May 15, 2008

good players that make what soto are making are worth an exponential figure of their weight in gold.

chuckywang · May 15, 2008

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.

It would be interesting to think about what Soto could get us on the open market however ...

The haul would be huge.

davearm2 · May 15, 2008

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime.

These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security.

All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).
This completely misses the point.

The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency.

Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee.

Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years.

Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here.

Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him.

Except the incentive of paying less in the long run.

Paying less in the long run is only one possibility.

Another possibility is that the extension guarantees higher salaries than the player would've earned if taken year-to-year... possibly much higher.

In the end, this discussion is moot without any hard figures. If Soto wanted to sell his next 5 seasons for $10M, then you have to take it. But if I'm running the team, unless I'm getting a real sweetheart deal like that, I'm keeping my options open and going year-to-year.

If the guy blows up and winds up costing me more than I could've gotten him for, then that's a nice problem to have. What's not a nice problem to have is having $6 or $8M a year committed for another 2-3 years on the next Rocco Baldelli... or Mark Prior for that matter. Just imagine how much worse that Prior situation would've been if he was making Tulowitzki money.

CoolHandLuke · May 15, 2008

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.

Wrong

I'd be damn happy to have Carlos Pena or John Lackey at those salaries for last year and this year.

brinoch · May 15, 2008

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.

It would be interesting to think about what Soto could get us on the open market however ...

The haul would be huge.

True. It's interesting to think about. However, the truth is that scarcity of production at the catching position is such that it would be extremely difficult to make up for the loss in production from Soto to Catcher X. Consequently, any deal is tough to imagine.

Any deal for Soto would have to improve another position beyond the loss associated with the expected downgrade at C. For the Cubs, the only position of need (at current) is arguably CF and SP (I think SS should be upgraded as well, but there's an in-house option with Cedeno). So, you'd be looking to trade Soto for a CF who would upgrade the team, Or perhaps an excellent starting pitcher.

Soto is (for the moment) at 1.018 OPS while all Cub CF production is at .655 OPS. The only CF in MLB anywhere near Soto is Nate McLouth and his 1.010 OPS. Even assuming that both McLouth and Soto will maintain their levels of production for the moment, I wouldn't trade them straight up -- that's just a lateral move (the salaries, too, are basically a wash). Soto's OPS is 8th in MLB. McLouth is 9th. You'd need to find a catcher that will do well enough to ensure that the deal upgrades the Cubs. Likewise, with SP, you'd need to find someone who pitches well enough every five days that he'll offset the loss of Soto in the lineup four out of every five days. Using VORP for a brief comparison is revealing -- Soto has a VORP of 17.4 (tops on the Cubs). Jake Peavy? Brandon Webb? 17.2 and 18.0, respectively.

At the moment, given Soto's position, production and salary, I'd think long and hard about trading Soto for any deal that doesn't absolutely knock my socks off.

SouthSideRyan · May 16, 2008

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime.

These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security.

All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).
This completely misses the point.

The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency.

Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee.

Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years.

Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here.

Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him.

Except the incentive of paying less in the long run.
Paying less in the long run is only one possibility.

Another possibility is that the extension guarantees higher salaries than the player would've earned if taken year-to-year... possibly much higher.

In the end, this discussion is moot without any hard figures. If Soto wanted to sell his next 5 seasons for $10M, then you have to take it. But if I'm running the team, unless I'm getting a real sweetheart deal like that, I'm keeping my options open and going year-to-year.

If the guy blows up and winds up costing me more than I could've gotten him for, then that's a nice problem to have. What's not a nice problem to have is having $6 or $8M a year committed for another 2-3 years on the next Rocco Baldelli... or Mark Prior for that matter. Just imagine how much worse that Prior situation would've been if he was making Tulowitzki money.

You can't really compare pitchers to position players. Pitchers have a much higher injury rate and are thus a much bigger risk. Is it your opinion that all of these pre-FA extensions have been bad moves? Because Berroa is the only one I can think of that hasn't turned out well thus far.

davearm2 · May 16, 2008

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.

Wrong

I'd be damn happy to have Carlos Pena or John Lackey at those salaries for last year and this year.

Carlos Pena made $800K in '07, and will make $6M in '08. $6.8M total.

Lackey made $5.5M in '07, and will make $7M in '08. $12.5M total.

You gave each $18.5M. I'd say they should be damn happy, and you should be looking for a new job.

TruffleShuffle · May 16, 2008

You gave each $18.5M. I'd say they should be damn happy, and you should be looking for a new job.

well carlos pena and john lackey were worth about $37M last year alone, so if i'm understanding your analysis, you're extremely wrong.

davearm2 · May 16, 2008

You can't really compare pitchers to position players. Pitchers have a much higher injury rate and are thus a much bigger risk. Is it your opinion that all of these pre-FA extensions have been bad moves? Because Berroa is the only one I can think of that hasn't turned out well thus far.

I think they represent a large risk exposure for a relatively small gain.

You price a guy as though he stays healthy and productive for the next 6 or 7 years. If he does exactly that, it's basically a wash -- he'll be getting paid about what the arb process would've awarded him anyway. If he blows up and overperforms expectations, you've landed a bargain. But if he regresses, gets hurt, loses interest, etc. etc., you're left holding a large bill for a lot of years. Small upside, large downside, comparatively.

You've got no choice but to accept this risk if you're talking about a free agent. If you won't jump in with both feet, the guy will just sign with someone else that will.

But with these young guys, you already control the player for all but the last 1 or 2 years. They're not going anywhere. So why assume all of that risk unnecessarily, is my feeling.

Soto

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs