SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
If Soto IS next Trout/Mantle do Sox go all in for 10yr deal?
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2022 12:48:44 GMT -5
I figured I'd throw this out there since the team will be shedding a ton of money this fall, and Bloom will finally have his tabula rasa. Soto doesn't hit the market until after the 2024 season, but front offices usually plan 3-5 years out. With free agent pick-ups this winter and an up-and-coming low-cost core of Casas, Bello, Walter (2023), Mata and Rafaela (mid-'23/2024), Mayer (mid '24/2025), and Yorke (2025), Soto would offer the perfect superstar anchor to go with any much shorter term free agents, and he'd only cost money, not prospects. If their internal models have him roughly equating Trout, Mantle or Miggy Cabrera, as Baseball Reference has him, should the Sox make him a priority, even if it takes a market setting deal? 10 years would sign him through his age 34 season, so one would expect that the Sox would have to offer more AAV than teams offering him 15-year deals. Also, there would likely be opt-outs for him at 31 or so. I've been thinking about this since the trade deadline and have yet to come up with a definitive answer, but I am leaning 'yes' IF they can keep the deal to 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Aug 5, 2022 13:26:41 GMT -5
Might be nitpicky, but I don't think there's any argument that Soto is as good as Trout. By the time Trout finished his age-23 season he already had almost 40 fWAR and all four of his full seasons were significantly better than Soto's best. He was Soto but even more consistently great with the bat and with way more defensive and baserunning value.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 5, 2022 13:32:44 GMT -5
I don’t think the timing works. SD, whether they sign him or not, will hold him to the absolute end. If the Sox haven’t used most of their salary space by then, they’ll have endured 2 more bad years. I expect they’ll sign other guys before he hits the market and not be in on him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 5, 2022 13:38:02 GMT -5
If he's the next Trout/Mantle....I think he's probably the next Hank Aaron, then hell yeah you go all in on him when he's a free agent. Sounds like he'd be available come 2025 which lines up nicely with the timeline when their top guys start graduating to the majors. Soto would look good in a lineup with Casas, Mayer, Rafaela, Bleis, possibly Yorke or whoever else (maybe Blaze?). The Sox should have a low enough payroll to afford him, even if they did re-sign Raffy.
Now would the Sox give him a 10 year 500 million deal or whatever the top contract in 3 years looks like? Doubtful. But that's a different issue. By then the Padres will know if they're still banging on the door of the championship, would have already won, or are nothing but big salaried busts and if they're going to turn around and sign him or trade him before he leaves or ride out his 2024 season in hopes of winning. I think if they deal him though, it would be to a team like the Yankees or Dodgers who are intent on extending him.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 5, 2022 13:50:12 GMT -5
I think it would make more sense to try re-signing Devers to a big deal (I think it would take something like 10/300 or 12/350) than to chase Soto a couple years from now for something like 10/450. A bunch of other teams will be interested in Soto, too, and you've got a year-plus of exclusive negotiating opportunity with Devers. If they were hitting free agency at the same time, maybe you roll the dice, but I don't think you can PLAN to let Devers walk (or trade him in 2023), let 2024 go by, and then hope that no other team can offer a better package in the winter of 2024 (and that the Padres can't sign him to an extension before that point either).
If it happened to play out that way (Devers leaves, no other huge free agent signings in the meantime, Soto really wants to test the market), I'd be game to try something bonkers for Soto. He's not Trout overall, but he's just such an absurd hitter. I think I'd try to go the route of offering something like 4/200 with the idea that I can make a couple of title runs and then the money is opened up around the time the wave of prospects are due for their paydays. Everyone is going to try offering lifetime deals, but maybe he'd be more interested in the flexibility of a sky-high AAV with another chance at free agency right around his peak.
I actually think the likeliest scenario (still unlikely, but likeliest) for Soto to end up in Boston would be if the Padres decide they can't/won't re-sign him at his asking price and then trade him in '24 as a rental.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 5, 2022 13:54:50 GMT -5
Part of the equation is you just have no idea how players will age. Soto could be really really really good and hit a cliff early and get riddle with injuries and not even be a HOFer, that's probably more likely than him becoming the next Mantle. I'd still take a swing at him if everything looks good when he hits the open market and we have that need.
Think of Nomar, in the late 90's there was an argument that Nomar was better than Jeter, sprinkle in a little injury for one a clean bill of health for the other and the rest is history. This is why it's always a tough pill to swallow signing guys to mega deals. I suppose that's the risk you take, building a sustainable championship team requires an element of luck.
When you can pay a guy early, overpaying in his team-controlled year but get a few of his years on the open market and/or offer opt-outs you get more premium years out of a guy. This is sort of my crazy, asinine, backward, unchecked theory that player opt-outs are actually team-friendly in the long run. Think of it this way, if Bogaerts gets 250++ on the open market and falls off a cliff in a few years how good do the Sox look to get 9 years of team control out of him over 5???
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2022 15:31:08 GMT -5
Part of the equation is you just have no idea how players will age. Soto could be really really really good and hit a cliff early and get riddle with injuries and not even be a HOFer, that's probably more likely than him becoming the next Mantle. I'd still take a swing at him if everything looks good when he hits the open market and we have that need. Think of Nomar, in the late 90's there was an argument that Nomar was better than Jeter, sprinkle in a little injury for one a clean bill of health for the other and the rest is history. This is why it's always a tough pill to swallow signing guys to mega deals. I suppose that's the risk you take, building a sustainable championship team requires an element of luck. When you can pay a guy early, overpaying in his team-controlled year but get a few of his years on the open market and/or offer opt-outs you get more premium years out of a guy. This is sort of my crazy, asinine, backward, unchecked theory that player opt-outs are actually team-friendly in the long run. Think of it this way, if Bogaerts gets 250++ on the open market and falls off a cliff in a few years how good do the Sox look to get 9 years of team control out of him over 5??? The injury thing is exactly what keeps me from being all in on a 10 year deal. I like the idea of a massively over paid five-year deal, like with $45 or $50 million AAV. Then afterhis age 29 season, he is free to go sign someone for the rest of his life. The problem is, he will probably be looking for at least a 10 year deal, and more likely 15. I think 10 is the absolute limit, and the way the team protects itself is to give him an opt out after his age 29 or 30 season. Then if he wants more he can go get it and the team can be done with him. he and his agent may prefer that, or they may prefer a long-term deal like Bryce Harper got, setting the market, and meaning he doesn’t have to sell his local mansion and move into one of his other mansions or build a new one in 5 years. 😁
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Aug 5, 2022 15:35:48 GMT -5
Not gonna happen don’t get your hopes up.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 5, 2022 15:37:39 GMT -5
They at the very least need to be involved in the bidding. We'll see how he looks the next two seasons though and if he looks more like he did in 2021 or this year because while he's been very good this year he hasn't exactly been elite. It appears to me his defense is worrisome and he could potentially turn into a 40 mil DH if he doesn't get more consistent in the field.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 5, 2022 15:37:40 GMT -5
Not just about Soto, but I always wonder why teams don’t overpay to get shorter deals. Imagine going to Soto in 2 years and saying how about 2 year, $95 million? You go for it, then you clear the decks. You essentially pay *not* to pay for years of decline.
I’d consider it with pitchers, especially.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 5, 2022 16:05:43 GMT -5
You may be able to blow somebody away with something 2/95, but that would be extremely dependent on the player's personality and appetite for risk. After all, one fastball to the wrist can mean there isn't another massive contract after the short deal. I like it as a strategy (and would try it with Soto if it's at all feasible) and I think it's going to become more common, but I get why a lot of players won't go for it.
As for a player opt-out in the middle of a long-term deal, that's considered a major benefit for the PLAYER, not the team. If you give Soto a giant 10 or 15 year deal with an opt-out after his age 30 season, you've got two likely scenarios: 1) he's still great and tests the market when the team would rather just keep him without further bidding; or 2) something goes wrong such that he won't get a better deal, in which case he declines the opt-out and the team gets saddled with the "bad" back-end of a megadeal. If you're going to go the "let's just get his peak" route, the play is the <5 year deal with a Scrooge McDuck AAV.
I'd love Soto in front of the Monster, but it definitely seems like a pipedream. I'd rather they take the more feasible route of signing Devers to an extension and competing around a core of Devers-Story-Casas (and then hopefully Mayer by 2024) for the rest of the '20s.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 5, 2022 16:09:55 GMT -5
Not just about Soto, but I always wonder why teams don’t overpay to get shorter deals. Imagine going to Soto in 2 years and saying how about 2 year, $95 million? You go for it, then you clear the decks. You essentially pay *not* to pay for years of decline. I’d consider it with pitchers, especially. As a general idea I agree, but I think with players getting the opt outs now there’s not much benefit to them unless the salary got way jacked up. I think for two years of Soto to pass up the mega deal you might have to pay him more like $75m+ a year. If you’re committed to going over the tax and don’t care about the overage I actually think this might make a lot of sense to do.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2022 16:16:32 GMT -5
You may be able to blow somebody away with something 2/95, but that would be extremely dependent on the player's personality and appetite for risk. After all, one fastball to the wrist can mean there isn't another massive contract after the short deal. I like it as a strategy (and would try it with Soto if it's at all feasible) and I think it's going to become more common, but I get why a lot of players won't go for it. As for a player opt-out in the middle of a long-term deal, that's considered a major benefit for the PLAYER, not the team. If you give Soto a giant 10 or 15 year deal with an opt-out after his age 30 season, you've got two likely scenarios: 1) he's still great and tests the market when the team would rather just keep him without further bidding; or 2) something goes wrong such that he won't get a better deal, in which case he declines the opt-out and the team gets saddled with the "bad" back-end of a megadeal. If you're going to go the "let's just get his peak" route, the play is the <5 year deal with a Scrooge McDuck AAV. I'd love Soto in front of the Monster, but it definitely seems like a pipedream. I'd rather they take the more feasible route of signing Devers to an extension and competing around a core of Devers-Story-Casas (and then hopefully Mayer by 2024) for the rest of the '20s. I know The opt out is ostensibly a player benefit, but if he still great at 30 and opts out, fine let him go unless you’re models really project him to be as good or nearly as good for the next 10 years. Because without PED‘s being re-introduced into the game, The vast majority of players will decline within two years of their 30th birthday, if not much sooner. and if your model says he want, then you have an exclusive extension period. Win-win. So even though it’s positioned, or thought of, as a player benefit that hurts the team if the player is still good, In my mind it’s a market inefficiency that only hurts the team if the player is injured or in a Pablo Sandoval level of decline. In which case you sign in for 10 years and that’s a sunk cost anyway. But, despite the benefits to the player, it also benefits the team benefits the team especially if it is in the age 30 or 31 season And the player is still productive. I don’t know why more people don’t see it this way. Decline is baked into this sport and most others. It’s predictable within a few years, and if you think you have a unicorn, then you have exclusive rights to extend the player. I love the opt out after 30. prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 5, 2022 16:28:54 GMT -5
I don't see how it benefits the team for a player being good increasing the likelihood that he leaves. If a player is good enough when the option rolls around to exercise it, he's probably still good enough that you want to keep him, in which case his price just went up. I guess you're following the "better to cut ties too early than too late" philosophy, but there are so few impact players that I generally hold that it's worth it to have some dead money on the back-end of a deal to get the stars that put you over the hump. Just a different approach, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 5, 2022 16:30:31 GMT -5
You may be able to blow somebody away with something 2/95, but that would be extremely dependent on the player's personality and appetite for risk. After all, one fastball to the wrist can mean there isn't another massive contract after the short deal. I like it as a strategy (and would try it with Soto if it's at all feasible) and I think it's going to become more common, but I get why a lot of players won't go for it. As for a player opt-out in the middle of a long-term deal, that's considered a major benefit for the PLAYER, not the team. If you give Soto a giant 10 or 15 year deal with an opt-out after his age 30 season, you've got two likely scenarios: 1) he's still great and tests the market when the team would rather just keep him without further bidding; or 2) something goes wrong such that he won't get a better deal, in which case he declines the opt-out and the team gets saddled with the "bad" back-end of a megadeal. If you're going to go the "let's just get his peak" route, the play is the <5 year deal with a Scrooge McDuck AAV. I'd love Soto in front of the Monster, but it definitely seems like a pipedream. I'd rather they take the more feasible route of signing Devers to an extension and competing around a core of Devers-Story-Casas (and then hopefully Mayer by 2024) for the rest of the '20s. I know The opt out is ostensibly a player benefit, but if he still great at 30 and opts out, fine let him go unless you’re models really project him to be as good or nearly as good for the next 10 years. Because without PED‘s being re-introduced into the game, The vast majority of players will decline within two years of their 30th birthday, if not much sooner. and if your model says he want, then you have an exclusive extension period. Win-win. So even though it’s positioned, or thought of, as a player benefit that hurts the team if the player is still good, In my mind it’s a market inefficiency that only hurts the team if the player is injured or in a Pablo Sandoval level of decline. In which case you sign in for 10 years and that’s a sunk cost anyway. But, despite the benefits to the player, it also benefits the team benefits the team especially if it is in the age 30 or 31 season And the player is still productive. I don’t know why more people don’t see it this way. Decline is baked into this sport and most others. It’s predictable within a few years, and if you think you have a unicorn, then you have exclusive rights to extend the player. I love the opt out after 30. prove me wrong. Well the opt out definitely hurts the team because the player only takes it if he’s good enough that he would get a bigger contract on the open market. If that’s the case, even if the team believes he’s going to decline for the rest of the deal, then instead of losing him for nothing the team could trade the rest of his contract at its current price and get additional value back.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 5, 2022 16:30:49 GMT -5
Not just about Soto, but I always wonder why teams don’t overpay to get shorter deals. Imagine going to Soto in 2 years and saying how about 2 year, $95 million? You go for it, then you clear the decks. You essentially pay *not* to pay for years of decline. I’d consider it with pitchers, especially. I think a lot of teams can do it but what will get a guy to sign is a 10 year 300 plus million dollar contact that contains the first 2 years at 95 million with an opt out after year 2. Players love that kind of contract. If they're Cy Young they get to opt out and become free agents at a huge dollar figure, but if they get injured and/or turn mediocre they opt in and get the security of a long term deal. Win-win when you're a top not free agent deciding where to go among multiple suitors.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 5, 2022 23:31:47 GMT -5
They have to get in touch with Boras , so you basically give Xman money , Xman goodbye. Build your lineup with Soto and Devers. He also helps in outfield because we lack talent in OF.
I know he will be more than Xman but you have to sacrifice him and JDM.
Does anyone know if he is linked to any teams?
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Aug 6, 2022 5:25:15 GMT -5
No. For a variety of reasons. One that I haven't seen kicked around much at all is this: In a couple years we'll likely see yet another great "gotta have" talent. In recent years it was Harper, Trout... now Ohtani. Financially, a team could make it work. Its ripple effect - limiting spending in other areas - puts a team in a potentially tight spot. Couple that with the "putting all your eggs in one basket" factor makes it a crippling move if Soto's injured. In basketball, one or two studs can carry a team. Not sure that extends to baseball. I'd prefer to see monies spread a bit more evenly throughout the roster, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by teddyballgame9 on Aug 6, 2022 8:02:51 GMT -5
No. For a variety of reasons. One that I haven't seen kicked around much at all is this: In a couple years we'll likely see yet another great "gotta have" talent. In recent years it was Harper, Trout... now Ohtani. Financially, a team could make it work. Its ripple effect - limiting spending in other areas - puts a team in a potentially tight spot. Couple that with the "putting all your eggs in one basket" factor makes it a crippling move if Soto's injured. In basketball, one or two studs can carry a team. Not sure that extends to baseball. I'd prefer to see monies spread a bit more evenly throughout the roster, if possible. I tend to want to see the team build a more even roster with more emphasis on a solid rotation and pen. It’s always sexy to sign or trade for big names, but once a team gets a player like Machado you tend to forget about them. Also mega teams haven’t been proven yet to win. The 2001 Mariners won a 116 games after losing Arod, Griffey Jr. and Randy Johnson. The 2007 team was boring but professional and won. If we need another Soto type player to pair with Devers, then why not see what Atlanta wants for Acuna. After signing Olson and Riley to long term deals, They may have to deal Acuna at some point.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2022 9:11:19 GMT -5
No. For a variety of reasons. One that I haven't seen kicked around much at all is this: In a couple years we'll likely see yet another great "gotta have" talent. In recent years it was Harper, Trout... now Ohtani. Financially, a team could make it work. Its ripple effect - limiting spending in other areas - puts a team in a potentially tight spot. Couple that with the "putting all your eggs in one basket" factor makes it a crippling move if Soto's injured. In basketball, one or two studs can carry a team. Not sure that extends to baseball. I'd prefer to see monies spread a bit more evenly throughout the roster, if possible. I tend to want to see the team build a more even roster with more emphasis on a solid rotation and pen. It’s always sexy to sign or trade for big names, but once a team gets a player like Machado you tend to forget about them. Also mega teams haven’t been proven yet to win. The 2001 Mariners won a 116 games after losing Arod, Griffey Jr. and Randy Johnson. The 2007 team was boring but professional and won. If we need another Soto type player to pair with Devers, then why not see what Atlanta wants for Acuna. After signing Olson and Riley to long term deals, They may have to deal Acuna at some point. The Braves aren't going to deal Acuna anytime soon. They have him signed to a sweetheart deal. He took security and is signed to a long-term deal below his market value. The Braves are not trading him, period. The Braves have done a great job signing young talent to security contracts. They're giving young guys $20 million contracts for 8 - 10 years and watching them blossom. The only misstep was a misstep that might have had nothing to do with them and that's losing Freeman, who apparently was upset at his agent for not getting him back with Atlanta. Your point is well taken but keep in mind, sometimes mega teams do win. The 1998 Yankees won 114 games plus another 11 in the post-season. The 2018 Red Sox won 108 games plus another 11 in the post-season. The 2007 Red Sox weren't a mega team, but that year, no other team won more games than they did. Cleveland matched them, until the post-season.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 6, 2022 10:28:44 GMT -5
No. For a variety of reasons. One that I haven't seen kicked around much at all is this: In a couple years we'll likely see yet another great "gotta have" talent. In recent years it was Harper, Trout... now Ohtani. Financially, a team could make it work. Its ripple effect - limiting spending in other areas - puts a team in a potentially tight spot. Couple that with the "putting all your eggs in one basket" factor makes it a crippling move if Soto's injured. In basketball, one or two studs can carry a team. Not sure that extends to baseball. I'd prefer to see monies spread a bit more evenly throughout the roster, if possible. I tend to want to see the team build a more even roster with more emphasis on a solid rotation and pen. It’s always sexy to sign or trade for big names, but once a team gets a player like Machado you tend to forget about them. Also mega teams haven’t been proven yet to win. The 2001 Mariners won a 116 games after losing Arod, Griffey Jr. and Randy Johnson. The 2007 team was boring but professional and won. If we need another Soto type player to pair with Devers, then why not see what Atlanta wants for Acuna. After signing Olson and Riley to long term deals, They may have to deal Acuna at some point. 2004 with Schilling, Pedro, Manny and Foulke were pretty close to a "mega team." They were some of the more expensive players on the market for their positions at that time. Their value over-performers were Bill Mueller, Jason Varitek and David Ortiz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2022 11:11:38 GMT -5
Of the major North American sports, baseball is the one where one transcendent talent impacts winning the least. Soto is also a very good player but, unless he dramatically improves his defense, looks more like a perennial All-Star than the best player in the league. As such, feels to me like this thread is 18 months too early if we need it at all. I’d be much more interested in the analogous Ohtani thread.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Aug 6, 2022 11:17:56 GMT -5
Let’s not forget that Soto acts like a complete bitch on the field. I don’t want that guy on my squad. Pay our homegrown stars!
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 6, 2022 11:19:46 GMT -5
Ohtani is awesome but there talking a starting point of 50 million? If anything happens to him your invested a lot of capital in him . But he is awesome I’m not gonna lie.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Aug 6, 2022 11:22:31 GMT -5
Ohtani is awesome but there talking a starting point of 50 million? If anything happens to him your invested a lot of capital in him . But he is awesome I’m not gonna lie. Yeah. This is baseball, and you can’t just rely on a star or two and a bunch of shlubs to carry a team over 162 games. It’s a non-starter for me to pay any one player that type of annual salary—if only because of how it impacts everything else you do with your roster.
|
|
|