Rocker's agent is Scott Boras. That feels like very relevant information.

I feel like they should still be able to get something done, although it's less likely now that I know Boras is involved.

There's a decent chance Rocker would end up having TJ surgery at some point anyway so potentially getting it out of the way now doesn't seem like an absolute deal-breaker, although it does warrant a reduction in price.

On the other side, my understanding is that Rocker's stock was already falling going into the draft, so betting that he'll do just as well after another year in college is really a roll of the dice. And how much could he possibly earn in endorsements as a college player? Even Mike Trout supposedly only makes $3.5 million per year from them, and most of the other top paid MLB players make sub-$1 million.

I guess I don't get why the Mets wouldn't just pay $6M anyway? You already sacrificed your other picks to be able to pay Rocker $6M, surely saving $1M or so isn't really worth it in this situation?

Depends how deep their concern is I suppose -- even the Mets don't want to just toss $6M away. Anyway, it's the Mets -- we can be confident they will somehow make the right decision.

I just don’t understand why pitchers agree to physicals. There’s always someone who will give you the money. Now he’s screwed

That's why he fell to #10, right? A sustained velocity drop from a power pitcher is never a good sign.

I just don’t understand why pitchers agree to physicals. There’s always someone who will give you the money. Now he’s screwed

Because he wants to get paid like he's healthy and too many teams were worried by the velocity drop.

The only college athletes who will be banking some serious cash from NIL will be playing football or basketball.

Mets: we’re concerned how the elbow looks in this MRI.

Boras: are you kidding me? How could he possibly be injured? He’s pitched 790 innings the last two years. Hell, he once threw 180 pitches against Kentucky. Does that sound like an injured pitcher to you?

I just don’t understand why pitchers agree to physicals. There’s always someone who will give you the money. Now he’s screwed

Because teams are (usually) not dumb enough to hand out millions of dollars without checking out the merchandise. There's a reason people do home inspections before they buy a house. If someone comes to you and says "hey, I want you to pay full price for this product" then you ask to see and examine the product first and they respond with "no, everything is fine but you can't look at it or touch it and there are no returns allowed" are you going to buy it? Of course not.

There's a reason people do home inspections before they buy a house. If someone comes to you and says "hey, I want you to pay full price for this product" then you ask to see and examine the product first and they respond with "no, everything is fine but you can't look at it or touch it and there are no returns allowed" are you going to buy it? Of course not.

Depends on the market. Some places where there are always multiple bidders, it's very difficult or impossible to buy unless you waive inspection. But Kumar does not have multiple bidders, and pitching another year in college seems like an extreme risk.

Depends on the market. Some places where there are always multiple bidders, it's very difficult or impossible to buy unless you waive inspection.

That really doesn't make any sense. If I own a house that's sound, requiring the waiving of inspection is going to reduce the price I get. If four people are bidding $500,000 w/o inspection, I can likely get one of then to pay $510,000 to have the right of inspection. The only party who benefits from no inspection is someone trying to unload a shitty house.

But Kumar does not have multiple bidders, and pitching another year in college seems like an extreme risk.

I wonder if he would instead just take most of the year off to rest his arm, then throw a few innings in an indy league to showcase himself. Luke Hochevar basically did that and parlayed himself into being a #1 pick.

That really doesn't make any sense. If I own a house that's sound, requiring the waiving of inspection is going to reduce the price I get. If four people are bidding $500,000 w/o inspection, I can likely get one of then to pay $510,000 to have the right of inspection. The only party who benefits from no inspection is someone trying to unload a shitty house.

You would think so, but the market doesn’t always behave rationally. And the real estate market still has a fair amount of inefficiency, uncertain timing, etc. Some people don’t want to or can’t afford to deal with that (say, if you’re moving for a new job) and are willing to take the risk around the inspection assuming they can fix any issues that are found later.

The only party who benefits from no inspection is someone trying to unload a shitty house.

As someone halfway through selling two houses this summer, I disagree. The inspection contingency is an opportunity for the buyer to demand concessions from the seller. Like "fix this issue" (no home is without issues, even those in good condition) or "credit me $XX to deal with this" or I'll walk away. The cost of the buyer walking away is enormous to the seller. Even an as-is sale with an inspection contingency isn't really as-is because the buyer can walk away if they don't like the result of the inspection, which gives them leverage to negotiate in a more advantageous position.

Which is to say, even if my house is in good condition and I've done honest work to prepare it for sale (I have), I'm taking $500k without an inspection over $510k with an inspection 10 times out of 10.

That really doesn't make any sense. If I own a house that's sound, requiring the waiving of inspection is going to reduce the price I get. If four people are bidding $500,000 w/o inspection, I can likely get one of then to pay $510,000 to have the right of inspection. The only party who benefits from no inspection is someone trying to unload a shitty house.

I'm guessing you don't have experience with this.

Landlord vultures have been circling over my city for a while now trying to turn every house in town into a rental. Friends have stories themselves or of neighbors who list houses and within 24-48 hours are considering cash offers over list price from multiple buyers. These are normal suburban houses, not mansions behind gated community walls. Even if a landlord needs to put 10-20K into a house to fix up things that would have been found in an inspection, it's worth it to them just to have the house. They'll make back their maintenance before the end of the first year.

I'm guessing you don't have experience with this.

I've bought a house, and would never do so without an inspection (just like I would never buy a used car without having a mechanic look at it). It's just dumb. A house could be hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in needed repairs. Bad foundation, faulty wiring, dry rot. You just don't take those kind of risks, when the downside could be the entire purchase price, less the land value.

My father and law and one of my best friends are in construction, but even after they looked at it, they insisted we get an inspection. The real estate market is riddled with people who do dumb things. I don't have to be one of them. There's no special house. If you won't sell me yours with an inspection, someone else will.

It's literally not possible to buy a house on condition of an inspection here right now. Sometimes, but not always, you can pay to have your own inspection done.

It's literally not possible to buy a house on condition of an inspection here right now. Sometimes, but not always, you can pay to have your own inspection done.

We had to pay for our inspection, but if markets are going to be irrational, you just don't participate. We bought in 2007, which was a very frothy market. We refused to bid. My wife probably looked at 100 houses before we picked one.

We had to pay for our inspection, but if markets are going to be irrational, you just don't participate. We bought in 2007, which was a very frothy market. We refused to bid. My wife probably looked at 100 houses before we picked one.

In the Toronto area, if you have move (perhaps because of a job relocation, or because your landlord is selling the place you're currently renting, or whatever), you have the choice right now of getting in a bidding war to buy a house/condo, or getting in a bidding war to rent a house/condo. You can say you don't want to participate in bidding wars or waive conditions, but not participating is essentially stating your choice to be homeless, which is something most people would prefer to avoid. And if you're participating, whether voluntarily or not, for the last year or more, asking for an inspection would ensure you wouldn't get the house.

#20 if you can do that, good for you. But if your company is relocating you across the country and you only have a couple of weekends to look at houses, or you want to move someplace before the school year starts so your kids don't have to change schools in the middle of the year, then you simply don't have that luxury.

Or to put it another way, your time also has value.

Institutional buyers are also working with a lot more data than you presumably were, and they're buying a portfolio of homes so the risk of one or two needing a bunch of work is not as big of a deal. In many cases they're already planning to do a major renovation. So if you're an individual consumer and you're competing against institutional buyers, you may need to make some concessions you wouldn't have done in 2007.

In the Toronto area, if you have move (perhaps because of a job relocation, or because your landlord is selling the place you're currently renting, or whatever), you have the choice right now of getting in a bidding war to buy a house/condo, or getting in a bidding war to rent a house/condo. You can say you don't want to participate in bidding wars or waive conditions, but not participating is essentially stating your choice to be homeless, which is something most people would prefer to avoid. And if you're participating, whether voluntarily or not, for the last year or more, asking for an inspection would ensure you wouldn't get the house.

Then rent. Overpaying on a rental is small potatoes.

If you won't sell me yours with an inspection, someone else will.

I'm sticking with my guess that you don't have experience with this.

We bought in 2007, which was a very frothy market.

Housing prices were plummeting by 2007.

Housing prices were plummeting by 2007.

No, they were flat in the first half. They didn't start really falling until very late 2007 and 2008. I worked in the MBS industry, I know exactly when they tanked.

The Case Schiller Weiss index for the US was basically flat from late 2005 through Oct. 2007, then it started to rapidly decline. NY didn't start to decline seriously until mid-2008.

I'm sticking with my guess that you don't have experience with this.

I've bought a house successfully. I'm sitting in it.

Then rent. Overpaying on a rental is small potatoes.

I don't know who you're arguing with here. I'm just trying to describe/explain people's behavior in the real world. I'm not saying that it's completely rational, or asking for your seal of approval.

I do some work with clients who buy homes to renovate and resell, and have looked at a fair number of houses myself over the past couple of years, so I feel like I have a pretty good sense of the market. It's very different from 2007 or even when I bought my current home in 2015.

The Case Schiller Weiss index for the US was basically flat from late 2005 through Oct. 2007

And that is because you did not have multiple bidders driving up housing prices like you did for years before that.

I've bought a house successfully. I'm sitting in it.

But you have obviously not experienced what we are specifically discussing here -- a housing market where you simply cannot buy a house if you don't waive inspection. And I know that because the things you are saying are just wrong, which many more experienced people have told you.

It's very different from 2007 or even when I bought my current home in 2015.

I bought 18 months ago. It's changed hugely since even then.

You know those bungee-like things they use to toss toys and prizes into the stands at sporting events? Well, just the other day I said to the wife, "Maybe we should look into selling our house," and immediately several groups of people started firing wads of thousand-dollar bills at my house. ("C'mon out, we know you're in there!" one of them screamed.)

Luke Hochevar basically did that and parlayed himself into being a #1 pick.

Which worked out great for him...but for the Royals, not so much. (His 78 ERA+ was the worst in MLB from 2008-12, minimum 700 IP).

I guess I don't get why the Mets wouldn't just pay $6M anyway? You already sacrificed your other picks to be able to pay Rocker $6M, surely saving $1M or so isn't really worth it in this situation?

I don't remember all of the draft rules. If they don't sign him, do the Mets get a compensation pick next year?

But you have obviously not experienced what we are specifically discussing here -- a housing market where you simply cannot buy a house if you don't waive inspection. And I know that because the things you are saying are just wrong, which many more experienced people have told you.

I bought a house a year ago. Both the house we sold and the house we bought had inspections.

Be it a house or a pitcher, I think we can all agree that the time to allow an inspection is when the prospective buyer commits to paying full price provided you pass.

In the specific case of Rocker, it would actually have made some sense to get an MRI done privately and share it with teams if it came out clean. He's definitely worth $6 million if the arm is healthy, and there was a significant risk he'd have to settle for late first round money if teams thought he was injured.

I bought a house a year ago. Both the house we sold and the house we bought had inspections.

Stop the presses!

Stop the presses!

You just insisted you "simply can not buy a house if you don't waive inspection." That was not my experience.

Yeah, same here. Confusing assertion. EDIT: Although I suppose I don't live where anyone else wants to. coke to jmurph


snapper's explanation of the situation is completely wrong

/Captain Obvious meme

35/36: I kind of took the unspoken implication from those posts to be "in many markets." It's mostly true where I live, but not universally.

No matter the market, snapper's explanation of the situation is completely wrong (that only people with a dud of a house would demand that).

You just insisted you "simply can not buy a house if you don't waive inspection." That was not my experience.

He said "a housing market where you simply cannot buy a house if you don't waive inspection." You happened to be buying in a market to which this didn't apply, which is not surprising, as housing markets tend to vary based on location.

If you wanted to buy a place last summer in the greater Toronto area, however, it almost certainly would have applied - houses were regularly selling without conditions within 24 hours of posting for significantly (as in the range of several hundred thousand dollars) over asking. There was no incentive for the sellers to allow an inspection, as the sellers would have another half-dozen over asking offers available to them, so why waste their own time allowing the buyer to do something that could only decrease the selling price?

He said "a housing market where you simply cannot buy a house if you don't waive inspection." You happened to be buying in a market to which this didn't apply, which is not surprising, as housing markets tend to vary based on location.

He didn't specify a location. If he meant this only applies to a few markets, that's not the way his posts came across.

By the way, I was one of multiple bidders on the home we acquired. The inspection was simply an expected part of the transaction here.

There was no incentive for the sellers to allow an inspection, as the sellers would have another half-dozen over asking offers available to them, so why waste their own time allowing the buyer to do something that could only decrease the selling price?

Right this is the part snapper gets wrong. It's (generally) not sellers saying "no inspections allowed!" It's 20 of the 25 (over-asking!) bidders offering to waive the inspection so that their bid stands out in the sea of bidders.

He didn't specify a location. If he meant this only applies to a few markets, that's not the way his posts came across.

If you couldn't infer this from the conversation, then I really don't know what to say. No one thinks of the entire US as a single homogenous housing market.

If he meant this only applies to a few markets.

How few is few? People are waiving inspections all over Florida now (which I think is bananas, but here we are).

If you couldn't infer this from the conversation, then I really don't know what to say. No one thinks of the entire US as a single homogenous housing market.

Well no, not a single homogeneous market, but I interpreted his comments to be speaking far more broadly about the housing market, not small pockets here and there.

Well no, not a single homogeneous market, but I interpreted his comments to be speaking far more broadly about the housing market, not small pockets here and there.

That would depend on what you consider a small pocket. For Canada, it included the greater Toronto area (about a sixth of of Canada's population), Vancouver and the surrounding area, Ottawa, and I'm sure others as well. For the US, I'd suspect you'd find a fairly considerable amount of the population is also subject to this, including a large part of the west coast and the northeast.

For some reason, I recall you living in Indiana. If I'm correct about the location, I can see the demand for housing there being somewhat less so than many other markets.

This was the reality for a lot of people looking to buy a house last year.

For some reason, I recall you living in Indiana. If I'm correct about the location, I can see the demand for housing there being somewhat less so than many other markets.

I sold in Indiana, bought in Cook County, Illinois (specifically, the Chicago suburbs).

Honestly, I was merely relating my recent experience as a homebuyer/seller in 32. It didn't warrant the snark in 34.

This may vary state by state, but in terms of the housing market here on the New Hampshire Seacoast, it is off the charts. In 2019, we saw a place we really liked (restored 190 year old farmhouse 1.4 miles from the ocean). It had a big attached barn that looked great on the outside, but clearly was going to need $200K+ work to restore it (which was not necessary, but if you're going to buy a house like this, it is almost sacrilege not to restore the historic barn). Anyway, the barn was keeping people from buying the otherwise-amazing house, so we offered to buy the house at a discounted price, without a *barn* inspection (the home still got an inspection, and was in great shape). He agreed, but here's the thing: Just because you agree to move forward with the transaction doesn't mean you have to stick with it until relatively deep in the process, and if you are willing to lose the deposit (which was about $10K, in this case), you can still walk away from the house if you really want to - you just lose the deposit.

So agreeing to not have a contingency based on a barn inspection allowed us to become the only potential buyer, signing the P&S agreement; we still got the inspection, which we paid for, and if for some reason there was something that came out of it that was a complete deal-breaker (which we thought was unlikely), then we could walk away for $10K. Other people were looking at this house every day, but by making this agreement, it froze the market. The cost of doing so, and taking a small risk that we might decide to back out, was putting $10K on the line. It all worked out, we got the house for $45K less than was listing at that moment, and we love the house.

My point to this is that we are certainly not the only people figuring stuff like this out, and in this crazy housing market, you have to find a way to separate yourself from the 20 other people coming to see the house this week. Agreeing to waive the inspection is *definitely* in the seller's interest, and if you are willing to risk your security deposit, it is *definitely* in the buyer's interest, too.

Guess I misread the headline of this thread and didn’t see that it is “Mets agreement to buy a house from Kumar Rocker suddenly in jeopardy.’

"a housing market where you simply cannot buy a house if you don't waive inspection"

For the life of me I cannot think of why I would have included the first four words here if I believed you couldn't buy a house anywhere without waiving inspection.

I also don't see what difference it makes if I thought there were a lot or a few markets where you have to waive inspection. I have no idea how many there are, but I can tell you I live in one. Go back 15 years, and most of you did too.

How few is few? People are waiving inspections all over Florida now (which I think is bananas, but here we are).

And who cares if it's few or many? They exist, and those were very clearly and explicitly was referring to.

So agreeing to not have a contingency based on a barn inspection allowed us to become the only potential buyer, signing the P&S agreement; we still got the inspection, which we paid for, and if for some reason there was something that came out of it that was a complete deal-breaker (which we thought was unlikely)

You could look at it both ways. On one hand, you expect to find things broken, etc., in a 190 year old house so if you're operating in good faith with your eyes open, when the inspection report comes back and says the back porch needs extensive repairs, the windows are all beyond their useful life, and there are leaks in the basement, you don't freak out and you don't demand the owner fix it. But not every buyer is going to approach it that way, which is a reason for the seller not to want to accept an inspection if they don't have to. This is not "trying to unload a shitty house."

My point to this is that we are certainly not the only people figuring stuff like this out, and in this crazy housing market, you have to find a way to separate yourself from the 20 other people coming to see the house this week. Agreeing to waive the inspection is *definitely* in the seller's interest, and if you are willing to risk your security deposit, it is *definitely* in the buyer's interest, too.

Generally speaking, they're looking for and getting security deposits of 5% or more up here, which often means $60K+ if you're buying a detached single-family house. If you're willing and able to walk away from that, you're in a different financial state than most.

But yes, you are correct in that walking away and taking the loss on the deposit is still an option. It's just an option that, for most people, means they won't be buying a house that year because that deposit represented a significant amount of their down payment.

yeah, I'm with Starblind on this one. I live in Seattle, and thankfully my realtor had a connection with an inspector, so we had multiple on the fly inspections. We paid for them, but if you need an inspection two days from now, you're going to pay for it. Seattle is so competitive, waiving the inspection is the norm. It's a sad commentary, but as they say, it is what it is.

Since this is the thread to share our housing decisions, we just bought in the Boston area, which is a crazy market right now. We had an inspection contingency, but it was very high and the understanding was that we could take the house or pull out, not negotiate for repairs. We also offered well over asking.

On a baseball note, we can now get to Fenway via commuter rail with very short walks on both ends.