Hairyducked Idiot

The issue isn't whether you are "happy" to let him opt-out after the three years. The issue is whether that scenario is *good enough* to balance out the downside of being stuck with him if he isn't. Would you give 33-year-old David Price (coming off three straight healthy, productive years) 4/120? Maybe.

The issue isn't whether you are "happy" to let him opt-out after the three years. The issue is whether that scenario is *good enough* to balance out the downside of being stuck with him if he isn't.

If you want to say that Boston would have had to pay $240m for him and the opt-out got it down to $210 and was thus worth it, fine. I think the numbers are off, but that's logically consistent. But saying that if you want 7/$210 then you should want 3/$90 with a player option for 4/$120 just as much is just wrong.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money Yes. But in practice it never seems to work that way. The Red Sox didn't seem to get any appreciable discount for Price in exchange for that opt-out. That's ... just *so* wrong.

Those posters are objectively wrong.

In this market? I don't think that's unreasonable. I'd do 5/$100 for him.

Just the opposite. Arrieta should be lining up to get an extension right now and the Cubs should stay far, far away.

This touches on an idea that a lot of people don't seem to grasp, and I don't quite understand why. In Free Agency, people have generally come around on the idea that free agents get paid more than they're 'worth' because of the circumstances needed to acquire them. Free Agents are not items in a store, so you can't just line up a suggested retail price and pay it. Because you're competing against other people who want that player, you're self selecting for those that believe the most in that player, driving up their perceived value of the player and therefore the price they pay. Don't get me wrong, between inflation and the masses there's still plenty of 'I wouldn't pay more than X/year' out there when the player ends up getting X+10 million, but more than ever people recognize that you're paying the price for the best possible version of that player and more, so no one genuinely thinks they're getting a deal when signing players, especially near the top of the market. For whatever reason, this idea has not translated to the trade market, even though the same principle applies. The original rumor here is that the Braves are 'enamored' with Soler. While they can try to drive down his price, if that rumor is at all true they certainly don't see him as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue going forward, so that doesn't have much bearing on what they'd trade for him. This is made even more true by the fact that Soler does not remotely need to be traded. The Cubs can make the offseason upgrades they need to without touching Soler, which means that they're not likely to accept a trade that values Soler as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue either unless they're really really(really really) bearish on him. We see this when dismissing other trade ideas as well, and it's why it's so tedious to talk about specific trade packages in general. Most potential trade ideas are based on some level of irrationality(either towards the player's value, the desire to pay the person their guaranteed money, a subjective reason like personality/behavior, or some combo), so that irrationality is assumed when thinking of potential packages. If that irrationality isn't the actual reality of the situation, then the trade probably won't come to fruition because it's not a great fit. That doesn't mean that there's a hard coded 'trade value' of X for that player that [your favorite team] is misjudging though. You did notice in my post that I mentioned the upside too. I didn't say he was *just* the bad things. It's just that in the "people value things differently," our assets in these trade discussions always mysteriously land on the high end of their potential value.

Opt-outs are deceptively bad and it's easy to talk yourself into them. The bad scenarios of the contract are the same, and the good scenarios are still good. They're just less good, and that really shifts the risk/reward calculations.

Screw opt-outs and pass on anyone who gets one.

i don't care about jorge soler's actual trade value because i don't want to trade him. That's a lot more reasonable than wondering which top prospect we're getting in addition to Miller.

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left. Shelby Miller is less than 1.5 years older than Soler, has three years of control left, was a higher-rated prospect than Soler at their respective peak ratings, and has actual success in the major leagues sustained over entire seasons. One-for-one is not an unreasonable swap. Maybe you don't want to do it because of screw pitchers, but the value is reasonable.

That's a neat tidbit, but I don't think Chapman belongs in this thread, given the title.

Baez in a starting job isn't any more of a leap of faith than Soler is. Like Tim, I'm just going to disagree with you on this and not bother rehashing this argument. We can rehash it a little bit. It's just yet another iteration of the collective blind spot Cubs fans have given themselves on Jorge Soler's downside. Baez put up a better fWAR than Soler last year and projects to a better one this year with Steamer. But it isn't about picking whether to gamble on Baez or Soler (and then also making an implied bet on Castro). It is about finding a way to keep them all on the team to mitigate risk on any of them seeing their downside. That's a different argument. I'm fine with that, I guess. I'd be fine with trading one too.

They might if you add some cash. The deal could be expanded to include Cubs prospects and additional assets from their side. It could be a minor league hitting for minor league pitching trade. There are a number of ways to make it work. Viable pitching prospects get traded every year. So why not just use that cash and prospects on a guy for the spot you want to use Hammel's savings to fill?

Baez in a starting job isn't any more of a leap of faith than Soler is. Like Tim, I'm just going to disagree with you on this and not bother rehashing this argument. We can rehash it a little bit. It's just yet another iteration of the collective blind spot Cubs fans have given themselves on Jorge Soler's downside. Baez put up a better fWAR than Soler last year and projects to a better one this year with Steamer.

Nobody is giving you a viable, near-MLB ready six years of control starting pitcher for one year of Jason Hammel.

Baez in a starting job isn't any more of a leap of faith than Soler is.

Are there a lot of teams looking to deal MLB-ready prospect pitchers? There are a lot of teams looking for MLB players and trading away those prospects is one way to get them. So which MLB players are you happy to trade away that will net us such a piece? I guess maybe Baez?

I just don't see how these avenues are noticeably better. You're going to need a sixth starter/swingman, and you're going to have to spend resources to get it. Committing $30m over a long period to a guy like Sierra, investing trade assets to get a guy for cheap that you can stash in the minors (assuming you can find a trade partner willing to give up for something like that), paying a free agent 1/$8m to come be that guy, or keeping Hammel at 1/$11m to be a bit better than that free agent? They all seem pretty similar to me. Nothing that makes keeping Hammel seem like a problematic option to me.

Are there a lot of teams looking to deal MLB-ready prospect pitchers?

*shrug* If you specifically have a scouting belief that Sierra is worth the money (and even though it's spread out over more years and saves you some money in the short-term, he's going to cost you more of a commitment than keeping Hammel does) and will sign with you, then sure, I don't have a problem with that particular line for the offseason. But that's an awfully specific case with some awfully specific assumptions required to get there.

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that. Which is probably why he's asking why people are talking about signing said 2nd SP of that level. Because pitching depth is really important and we don't have any unless we go out and get some.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it? Over the course of, I don't know, 25 starts, I'd say the downgrade from Hammel to Clayton Richard is probably similar to the downgrade from Heyward to whomever we get instead of Heyward. Good thing that isn't what I'm suggesting at all. If you trade Hammel to save money for Heyward and run with exactly 5 SPs, your sixth guy is going to be a replacement-level guy like Richard. And you are probably going to need a lot of starts from him.

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that.