Going somewhere, Soto? Yes, to the Yankees

[squally1313]

Yeah I think I disagree on there being much negotiation value to having him on the roster all year. But you make a really good point about getting the rights to the comp pick that I hadn't initially been thinking about. Ups the value of what you're getting even if you don't sign him long term (and theoretically ups the cost)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This isn't perfect, but maybe useful.  The last 2 offseasons, 10 of the 28 players receiving a QO ended up back with their previous team.  Only 2 of the 12 players with the same or greater AAV as the QO did so.

[Bertz]

10 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

IMO I just don't think this is true.  He's in the drivers seat he's going to go where he wants.  In all likelihood it can't hurt but are you willing to waste the prospects to find out he has no interest in signing an extension.  If it all it takes is Morel - and I want to keep Morel - then I think you have to do it but I'm not huge on the idea of trading a boatload of prospects on the hopes of him re-signing a contract that an be expressed as a factor of a Billion Dollars.

If the Cubs were a year further ahead of schedule we would have absolutely been having the same arguments about Rafael Devers.  The Sox eventually and unexpectedly sacked up and locked him down.  Don't take for granted the guy will be there a year from now.

Boras has a reputation for no extensions, and his guys certainly do them less often, but you can absolutely lock a Boras client down.  Strasburg is a prominent example that comes to mind.  Start writing Soto a check that starts with a 5 and I really doubt he turns it down.

And even if he does hit the market a year from now, how many times have we seen the deal where a guy goes back to his last team for a chance to match?  Hell isn't that what the "Arson Judge" debacle was last winter?

[chopsx9]

6 hours ago, Bertz said:

If the Cubs were a year further ahead of schedule we would have absolutely been having the same arguments about Rafael Devers. 

  Hell isn't that what the "Arson Judge" debacle was last winter?

I would have posted (and I may have)  the exact thing regarding Devers.

Both Strasburg and Judge had already been with their teams long-term, so not really the same situation.  It didn't cost them anything.  The point is the Cubs have zero indication Soto has any interest in signing an extension and will have to give up significant prospects to find out.

I'm certainly not going to cry if they end up with Soto.  

[squally1313]

7 hours ago, Bertz said:

If the Cubs were a year further ahead of schedule we would have absolutely been having the same arguments about Rafael Devers.  The Sox eventually and unexpectedly sacked up and locked him down.  Don't take for granted the guy will be there a year from now.

Boras has a reputation for no extensions, and his guys certainly do them less often, but you can absolutely lock a Boras client down.  Strasburg is a prominent example that comes to mind.  Start writing Soto a check that starts with a 5 and I really doubt he turns it down.

And even if he does hit the market a year from now, how many times have we seen the deal where a guy goes back to his last team for a chance to match?  Hell isn't that what the "Arson Judge" debacle was last winter?

But ultimately your argument here is still 'write a check big enough that he doesn't think any other team will match it', which isn't really gaining much of an advantage. Being able to match the best offer on the market means you're paying more than 28 (maybe 29) teams are willing to pay. Offering anyone besides Ohtani a contract that starts with a 5 is just paying more than anyone else would have. If that's the case, I don't really care whether they do it in August or November, it's still the same result.

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

But ultimately your argument here is still 'write a check big enough that he doesn't think any other team will match it', which isn't really gaining much of an advantage. Being able to match the best offer on the market means you're paying more than 28 (maybe 29) teams are willing to pay. Offering anyone besides Ohtani a contract that starts with a 5 is just paying more than anyone else would have. If that's the case, I don't really care whether they do it in August or November, it's still the same result.

So there's reall two different considerations here.  First is "Is there any value to trading for Soto beyond the ~6 WAR he's going to put up?"  The answer to that is yes, you've got at minimum a qualifying offer at the tail end. 

The second question is "Does the team trading for Soto get an advantage in retaining him?"  I contend that's also yes.  The qualifying offer contributes here in a prett explicit way.  The number Jed threw out a few years ago was $20M.  But regardless of what it's worth, the team that already has him essentially starts the bidding with an $XM head start.  There's also the soft stuff.  If he likes it where he's traded he might sign an extension or give that team an opportunity to match in FA.   Those aren't things with a dollar value, but if you're worried about your chances of retaining him they absolutely matter.

Honestly though?  Even if there's no chance of keeping him trade for him anyway.  He's  legitimate 6-7 WAR demigod.  He'd be our best player since prime Bryant and our best hitter since Sosa.  Sweating losing like Christopher Morel or Owen Caissie over that is loser stuff.

[Rex Buckingham]

Just now, Bertz said:

The second question is "Does the team trading for Soto get an advantage in retaining him?"  I contend that's also yes.  The qualifying offer contributes here in a prett explicit way.  The number Jed threw out a few years ago was $20M.  But regardless of what it's worth, the team that already has him essentially starts the bidding with an $XM head start.  

I dont understand this idea of the QO being a head start. It's not like the NBA where your current team can offer you more. Yes, it costs them something in terms of picks and draft pool, but when the player is as good as Juan Soto, that will not impact the contract offer. 

Yes, it provides a benefit to the team who had him, but that has nothing to do with retaining him or not. It's a (not that meaningful) consolation prize for no longer having Juan freaking Soto on your team. 

What am I missing?

[Jason Ross]

4 hours ago, Rex Buckingham said:

I dont understand this idea of the QO being a head start. It's not like the NBA where your current team can offer you more. Yes, it costs them something in terms of picks and draft pool, but when the player is as good as Juan Soto, that will not impact the contract offer. 

Yes, it provides a benefit to the team who had him, but that has nothing to do with retaining him or not. It's a (not that meaningful) consolation prize for no longer having Juan freaking Soto on your team. 

What am I missing?

I believe what @Bertzis trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because the QO has value, it should allow a team expecting to gain a QO an advantage in what they're able to offer. Let me give an example:

For this practice, let's assume the QO is worth $20m in "value" and the Cubs traded for Soto. Soto doesn't sign an extension and it's now next offseason. A QO is extended to Soto and he does not accept. 

The Yankees offer Soto $300m. Because he has a QO attached, they really stand to spend $320m, $300m on the initial contract and then the $20m value "loss" on the draft pick. The Cubs, then, should be willing to offer the initial $300m to match, but also should be willing to offer an additional $20m because if Soto re-signs with the Cubs, they too, won't gain a supplemental pick (resulting in a $20m "loss" of value they could gain from Soto leaving). The Cubs should be willing to match the total "spend" or "loss" of the Yankees to truly "match" their offer. To match the same loss, the Cubs contract offer then should be $320m total, giving them a $20m "advantage" on what they could offer in this situation while having the same net "loss" in total value.  Both teams are spending $320m, but in only one situation is that entire $320m headed to Juan Soto. Advantage: Cubs.

Sadly, while in practice, it could work this way, I'm not sure we see teams operate this way. I think teams view these picks as parachute payments and simply offer the same basic contract.  While losing a QO results in a gain or loss of $20m in "value" in terms of real world spending, it doesn't really equate to $20m (a 2nd round pick gets $1m or so in signing bonuses and then their pittances of a salary for a handful of years). MLB teams love to be cheap where and when they can, just look at how many teams fear the boogey man of the LT, a self imposed line that really only taxes small amounts compared to their total spending. We haven't seen players en masse receive $20m extra and stay with their current teams, so I'm not sure teams are following this way of thinking.

Edited November 10, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Bertz]

Yeah 1908 you nailed it.  The team that has a QO player heading into the offseason more or less comes to the table with a $20M coupon in hand.  Is that going to matter if e.g. the Yankees want to go scorched earth and offer Soto $50-100M more than anyone else?  Of course not.  But just because it's not a guaranteed way to lock your guy down like e.g. the Franchise Tag doesn't mean it's not a real factor with a notable value.

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Yeah 1908 you nailed it.  The team that has a QO player heading into the offseason more or less comes to the table with a $20M coupon in hand.  Is that going to matter if e.g. the Yankees want to go scorched earth and offer Soto $50-100M more than anyone else?  Of course not.  But just because it's not a guaranteed way to lock your guy down like e.g. the Franchise Tag doesn't mean it's not a real factor with a notable value.

[Rex Buckingham]

I just don't understand where that value is coming from. Yes, the team offering the QO gets a draft pick if they sign elsewhere. That doesn't make their offer more valuable. I see no reason it would make them willing to offer more money either. Either you have Soto or you have a draft pick. You should be willing to bump your offer based on if you think the player is worth the contract. Your offer isn't worth more because you get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere. Their offer isn't worth more because they would lose one.

Yes, teams make decisions about whether or not to offer a QO guy a big deal based on where the pick would be, but for a player of Soto's caliber that's completely irrelevant. I'd give up the 1st overall for him, and so should any reasonable GM. For a guy like Chris Bassitt or Tyler Anderson, sure you adjust your offer accordingly, but not for Juan freaking Soto

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

11 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

I just don't understand where that value is coming from. Yes, the team offering the QO gets a draft pick if they sign elsewhere. That doesn't make their offer more valuable. I see no reason it would make them willing to offer more money either. Either you have Soto or you have a draft pick. You should be willing to bump your offer based on if you think the player is worth the contract. Your offer isn't worth more because you get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere. Their offer isn't worth more because they would lose one.

Yes, teams make decisions about whether or not to offer a QO guy a big deal based on where the pick would be, but for a player of Soto's caliber that's completely irrelevant. I'd give up the 1st overall for him, and so should any reasonable GM. For a guy like Chris Bassitt or Tyler Anderson, sure you adjust your offer accordingly, but not for Juan freaking Soto

 

It's because the team signing a player with a QO attached gives up a high draft pick and the associated signing pool.  It's not a coincidence that consistently successful teams, even those with big, big payrolls, generally only sign QO free agents when they're losing a QO'd player to mitigate the impact to their draft pool.

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

I just don't understand where that value is coming from. Yes, the team offering the QO gets a draft pick if they sign elsewhere. That doesn't make their offer more valuable. I see no reason it would make them willing to offer more money either. Either you have Soto or you have a draft pick. You should be willing to bump your offer based on if you think the player is worth the contract. Your offer isn't worth more because you get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere. Their offer isn't worth more because they would lose one.

Yes, teams make decisions about whether or not to offer a QO guy a big deal based on where the pick would be, but for a player of Soto's caliber that's completely irrelevant. I'd give up the 1st overall for him, and so should any reasonable GM. For a guy like Chris Bassitt or Tyler Anderson, sure you adjust your offer accordingly, but not for Juan freaking Soto

 

The value is in the draft pick. A supplemental round draft pick nets teams, usually, a 45 FV player. A 45 FV player has surplus value, more so, than say, a 40 FV and less than a 50. Using Hoyer's numbers, he has claimed that surplus value to be around $20m in the past. With inflation, we can assume in his mind that number is more today. Other sites would put that value at different levels, it's not a set number, but it doesn't really matter, what matters is the player has value.

If you sign a player to a contract who's attached to a QO, you can effectively say you're spending X in real world dollars, but also spending the value of that 2nd round selection (which, like a supplemental round pick, is worth around a 45 FV player). It's opportunity cost. 

What @Bertz is trying to say, and in theory I agree with him, if you are a team who's expecting a supplemental pick from a player if he signs elsewhere, than you have an incentive to offer more than you would. In the end you can either re-sign the player or get the pick. So in the example I gave above with Soto, if the Yankees offer $300m, they're really spending $320m in total losses: $300m and the loss of the pick, which is, roughly $20m. If the Cubs offer $300m, they are then not gaining the $20m in value, so they should in theory have incentive to spend an extra $20m because they're going to lose that anyways. The Cubs giving $320m to Soto matches the same cost of the Yankees $300m in this exercise. 

I'm not sure teams operate in such a fashion, but an argument can be made they should.

Edited November 10, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Jason Ross]

Kiley McDaniel believes it's over 50/50 that Soto will be traded this winter.

Alden Gonzalez says that the perception around the league, regardless of what Preller/Boras say, is that Soto will be dealt.

"I don't think they have much of a choice", said one rival GM. The Padres are currently in a dangerous posiiton; they are out of compliance with their debt and have to get back into compliance or the MLB will intervene. While this happens frequently, and it's like the Padres will make that happen, too, they will struggle to do that without trading Soto.

ESPN article and link to source

From my perspective, it also makes it far more likely the Padres have zero interest in eating any money to get a better deal. That should keep the trade value (which is still Juan Soto, mind you) lower.

Edited November 10, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Cuzi]

The Padres will probably try and throw in a contract with Soto, like Cronenworth, and they'll still probably get a bigger return than what people think is fair simply because its Juan Soto and there's no shortage of teams that will be intrigued by a 1 year shot with him in the lineup.

Cronenworth hit .288 as a 2B last year. If he was getting lumped into the deal then the Red Sox really stand out. They were second worst in baseball at the position, they can obviously afford Soto, and they are looking to unload Verdugo.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Cuzi

[imb]

god horsefeathers dammit the pun in the thread title just dawned on me

[We Got The Whole 9]

49 minutes ago, imb said:

god horsefeathers dammit the pun in the thread title just dawned on me

Do tell 

[Tim]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Do tell 

Here's a hint...

 

(Going somewhere, Solo?)

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Star Terk is for nurds.

[Sammy Sofa]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:24 AM, Sammy Sofa said:

JUAN, ME BOOGIE.

[Petrey10]

New rumor is Padres wants , Hayden, Horton, Assad, Brown or one of our aaa starters….

 

imo give them Hayden and get this done. I wasn’t impressed with him anyway. And if it gets Soto (even for one year!) I’m game with Hayden. 
 

id prefer a long term contract but would do it anyway.

 

I don’t think we can stop there tho…. If you trade Hayden you still goes balls out for one of the jap SP and Ohtani. 
 

make the push!!!

[Bertz]

If you read Passan's article this AM or Kevin Acee's from last week the vibe I get is that the ask on Soto will actually be two pre-arb SPs.  Looking at their depth chart, they desperately need innings after losing Lugo and Martinez (in addition to Snell).  So something like Wicks & Wesneski or Brown & Assad would be the main part of a Soto trade.  I'm sure there will be other pieces (Mervis makes a lot of sense?) but I increasingly wonder if the Morel/Caissie/Alcantara tier of bats can go untouched in this specific deal.

That said it would force Jed to further shore up SP this winter.  Maybe that's a Morel to Seattle trade.  Maybe it's a 2nd FA starter acquisition, someone in that like Kenta Maeda/Kyle Gibson tier.  

[WhyCantWeWin]

22 minutes ago, Petrey10 said:

New rumor is Padres wants , Hayden, Horton, Assad, Brown or one of our aaa starters….

 

imo give them Hayden and get this done. I wasn’t impressed with him anyway. And if it gets Soto (even for one year!) I’m game with Hayden. 
 

id prefer a long term contract but would do it anyway.

 

I don’t think we can stop there tho…. If you trade Hayden you still goes balls out for one of the jap SP and Ohtani. 
 

make the push!!!

You mean Horton? Wesneski wouldn't be much of a loss

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

You mean Horton? Wesneski wouldn't be much of a loss

I wouldn’t give them Horton. I would give them a combination of any of the other two mentioned. Then trade Morel for a young controlled pitcher and sign another pitcher. Maybe sign Hoskins as well and start the season. If they want they can spend a little on a few pen arms too. 

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

I wouldn’t give them Horton. I would give them a combination of any of the other two mentioned. Then trade Morel for a young controlled pitcher and sign another pitcher. Maybe sign Hoskins as well and start the season. If they want they can spend a little on a few pen arms too. 

I would hope they would do more than trade for Soto, trade Morel for a controllable pitcher, sign Hoskins, and then throw a couple dollars at the bullpen.

That would be extremely underwhelming to me, even with Soto because it's only for 1 year, with how scorched earth they have been teasing. That would be another we are going for it but siding on "intelligent."