I think the shocking part is thinking they could just pay for the 10 really good years, then get the decline phase for free. good luck with that! wait, they had no luck with that.

Why trade him? Long time to go . Just hold on and see what happens. A lot can change

“Mr. Rizzo, Andrew Friedman is on line 1 for you”

They should get him out of the National League so they don't have to face him as much. And you don't want him going to NY because it's a rival city of Washington DC (everyone knows that). Probably want to keep him on the East Coast, though, so you can keep tabs on him.

They should get him out of the National League so they don't have to face him as much. And you don't want him going to NY because it's a rival city of Washington DC (everyone knows that). Probably want to keep him on the East Coast, though, so you can keep tabs on him.

So...Baltimore or Tampa?

Am I missing something, or is this correct: that's less per year, AAV, than 16 guys are currently making (per spotrac). They're hiding behind "biggest contract ever!" which is true, to distract from the fact it's pretty clearly a well below market contract offer.

They should get him out of the National League so they don't have to face him as much. And you don't want him going to NY because it's a rival city of Washington DC (everyone knows that). Probably want to keep him on the East Coast, though, so you can keep tabs on him.

So...Baltimore or Tampa?

I see what both of you did there, but since the O's and the Rays can't afford him, maybe Darren can think of another possibility.

Am I missing something, or is this correct: that's less per year, AAV, than 16 guys are currently making (per spotrac). They're hiding behind "biggest contract ever!" which is true, to distract from the fact it's pretty clearly a well below market contract offer.

How many of those are already controlled years, which are years you know that the player isn't going to get paid 'average' value?

Working out a deal during the remainder of this season seems rather doubtful, considering the large haul needed to pull it off*. And the Nationals may be sold by or during the off-season, with the price likely higher if Soto is still in the fold. So it may come down to whether new owners are willing to bump the AAV some. Buying the team and immediately alienating the fan base by letting Soto go wouldn’t seem like a smart move.

* I suppose the Yankees could put together a package centered on Matt Carpenter, although his 1.338 OPS dwarfs Soto’s .895. ;>)

* I suppose the Yankees could put together a package centered on Matt Carpenter, although his 1.338 OPS dwarfs Soto’s .895. ;>)

Maybe throw in Josh Donaldson?

How many of those are already controlled years, which are years you know that the player isn't going to get paid 'average' value?

Good question. Looks like he's arb eligible after this year, and I have to think he'd be on pace to break whatever the current record is?

I don't know, I'm happy to be corrected on any of this, I haven't been paying as much attention to salaries/contracts the last few years. But this just seems to me like a low ball disguised as a record-breaking offer. Like they want the years without paying the premium up front.

I'm going to guess he wants to get to free agency again when he's still in his prime? He's going to play this entire season at age 23. So throw a ridiculous 5 year offer, or 6 or 7, whatever (maybe they're doing this and it just isn't leaking).

Am I missing something, or is this correct: that's less per year, AAV, than 16 guys are currently making (per spotrac). They're hiding behind "biggest contract ever!" which is true, to distract from the fact it's pretty clearly a well below market contract offer.

I don't know, that seems like a pretty big thing to hide behind. Nobody is making that AAV for 15 years:

Tatis - 14 years but way lower AAV
Stanton + Harper - 13 years, lower AAV
Trout - 12 years, higher AAV
Mookie 12 years, lower AAV (discounted for deferrals)

I'm very pro player and think Soto should do whatever makes him happy, but this isn't some kind of lowball offer to look like you're trying.

If those numbers are correct, the Nats’ offer would have given Soto an AAV of $29.33MM over that 15-year span, which falls a little shy of some of the game’s top contracts.

If he stays healthy, he’ll easily make more than $29.33MM AAV by his final season before free agency.

These two sentences appear to explain it all.

#6 ... sure ... but it's !5 YEARS. (If reports are true) With no deferrals (if reports are true). Mookie got 12/$365 ... but half of that money is deferred so the real AAV on that contract is much, much lower ... even the MLBPA which usually uses a very small discount rate puts its value at $307 M.

Trout's deal easily beats it but then Trout has been the better player. You also have to remember that this buyout covers 2 more arb years when Soto won't be making market value -- probably $50-55 M. That puts it at about a 13/$390 extension which is still not a huge AAV but (without deferrals) is clearly better than Mookie's. Tatis, with 2 years service time, got 12/$340 ... 15/$440 don't sound so bad. Harper got 13/$330 ... this offer would pay Soto about 13/$400 for the same ages.

This offer would, give or take, value him at 20% more than Mookie, 20% more than Harper, 30% more than Tatis. Where it maybe falls over is Stanton who got 13/$325 at about the same point in age and service time. That was back-loaded (but not deferred per se) so there's some reduction in NPV but that deal started 8 years earlier than this one did. 2 years and $115 M versus 8 years -- this is probably roughly the equivalent of the Stanton deal, maybe cheaper.

Once you're out past 10 years or so, the AAV doesn't matter much, it's about risk and deferral. 15 years is a very long time. The Stanton deal is not working out; it's not clear Trout's deal is gonna work out (it's in year 4, just 1300 PA ... 15 WAR ain't shabby). Signing Griffey to this contract would have gotten you 54 WAR for $440 M ... which is about market value.

It's not as good as ARod's deals for either Soto or, in all likelihood, for his teams. (ARod had 93 WAR 24-38)

This offer as described pretty much pays him as the #2 player to Trout. Boras might think he can get more than Trout -- I don't. Soto won't do substantially better than this in real $ terms (who knows with inflation) while he'll be taking on 2 years of (not very big) risk. Soto should have taken this deal (or, fine, go back with 15/$450 if $30 M is a big ego thing).

If the Nats owners are selling they may simply want to strip costs out while they own it (max out short term profit ) which might mean that Strausburg and/or gets added to deal.

If that's the case the prospect haul won't need to be as much but the receiving team has a huge payroll hit to handle. If you were in win now (2-3 year window), that might work. Teams with bloated payrolls may not be able to handle that and teams that can't plausibly win in next 3 years are out

As best as I can see, the Cardinals are the only team that can take on Soto. If we have to, I guess ok with it

You can’t pay single year market value in a 15 year contract because the team is taking massive injury risk.

This offer would, give or take, value him at 20% more than Mookie, 20% more than Harper, 30% more than Tatis. Where it maybe falls over is Stanton who got 13/$325 at about the same point in age and service time. That was back-loaded (but not deferred per se) so there's some reduction in NPV but that deal started 8 years earlier than this one did. 2 years and $115 M versus 8 years -- this is probably roughly the equivalent of the Stanton deal, maybe cheaper.

Heyman reported that this offer to Soto is so heavily backloaded that it effectively includes a deferral.

In the current economic climate, teams may need to offer relatively high AAV and/or an inflation adjustment if they want to make a 15-year offer look attractive.

You can’t pay single year market value in a 15 year contract because the team is taking massive injury risk.

Then don't offer 15 years.

Then don't offer 15 years

What did I say that didn’t make sense?

If Carlos Correa is worth paying $35M a year for three years, he’s worth less per year on a 15 year deal even if his performance didn’t decline. It’s because his odds of missing more time both increases with age but also contract length. An injury that causes him to miss two years only costs the Twins one paid year on average because 2/3s of the time it happens in the 2nd or 3rd contract year, on a fifteen year deal the team almost always pays for the full two years. A career ending injury is up to a fifteen year risk on a 15 year deal.

The counter is inflation. If you could be assured inflation would be 9% for the next decade, it makes sense to pay current day short term annual wages for long term deals. In eight years that annual pay will be halved in spending power and likely half of similar baseball contracts being signed then.

Another counter argument to my original position is if the percentage of time missed is likely to be similar so AAV should be similar. So if a career ending injury costs half of the contract time whetted 15 years or 3 years it’s the same relative risk per AAV paid. This doesn’t seem right to me though, but I can’t figure out why.

I do like the fact that at least one outlet has the Cardinals as best option for landing Soto, of course apparently the Cardinals also have one of the best chance of getting Montas, and at least one tweet said that they are about to announce a trade for Syndergaard (which just seems like adding another if to a team full of ifs in the rotation)

The linked article has now been updated to indicate that $440M was “heavily backloaded into the last 6 seasons of the offer”. With the current inflationary climate, that’s not all that attractive. Front load the deal, or offer a COLA, if you want to sign Soto.

As a Jays fan I can see how they could afford Soto even if taking on Strausburg's insane $150 million still owed. The Jays are owned by Rogers who would see $150 million as an accounting error almost (yes, they are that big) and given they own the TV station that shows Jays games they'd get immediate revenue from the team making the playoffs and going deep (which I'd assume Soto would make possible) - the Jays get over 500k viewers for spring training games this year - put them in the playoffs and you're looking at viewership in the millions given past results. If they feel Soto could be that magic bullet (ala David Cone in 1992) then he'd easily be worth eating that ugly contract and pushing the payroll up to the $200 million range. That would then open up the possibility of trading Gurriel or Hernandez for pitching help. Plus the farm is fairly deep and getting deeper via 4 top 100 picks this draft and 'pre-signed' a 15 year old IFA who is highly rated in Emmanual Bonilla thus can risk dumping a few in a Soto trade.

Should be interesting to see what happens in the end.

Just WAGging but over a 15-year deal (through age 38) I'm not sure you can expect more than about 7500 PA. That would put Soto on 10,000 PA for his career which conveniently enough works out to 12 full seasons. So this offer is $36+ per full season which ain't too shabby.

Heyman reported that this offer to Soto is so heavily backloaded that it effectively includes a deferral.

I wonder where Heyman got that tidbit from. :-) For clarity, although maybe not historically consistently, I'm using "backloading" as "put a lot more money at the end than upfront" and "deferral" as "money paid after the deal" which I gather is how Heyman is using it.

Now nearly all long-term deals are backloaded -- that's what the extra years do. The Ms weren't so much counting on Cano being worth $24 per year at the end of his deal, they were counting on him being worth $30-35 per year in the early years of the deal ... which he roughly was then they had to eat enough money in the trade to pretty much lose what they had gained in those years.

Anyway, the Stanton deal was heavily backloaded. It covered his last two arb years -- he was at 4.118 years when he signed; Soto will be at 4.134 at season's end -- then 11 FA years. But he had made $6.5 M in his first arb year and $6.5 M in the first year of the new deal (which came after a 6.5 WAR season), just $9 the next year then just $14.5 in what would have been his first FA year. There alone the Marlins were probably saving at least $20 M per year. Then 3 years at $25-26. So that was 6 years at $107 M with the Marlins getting the first 3. The last 7 years of the deal (we're in year 2) pay him $218 ($31 AAV) with the Marlins picking up $30 M of that. At the time of the trade, I figured Stanton on the open market would have gotten about 10/$250-270, the Yanks will pay 10/$265. Alas, he's been injured even more than expected.

Anyway, the Stanton deal was certainly backloaded enough to have a very different NPV than the headline number suggested. Let's WAG a similar deal for Soto. He's making $17 this year (year 2, double what he made last year). So assume something like $17 next year, $22 next year and $27 in first FA year. Then 3 years at $30, 4 years at $36, 5 years at $32 and a $15 buyout of an option ... that's 15/$475. If the Nats deal was this severely backloaded and comes out to 15/$440 then I can see why he might turn that down (it's still $440 M, hard to say no). But if a Stanton-esque 15/$475 is acceptable then 15/$440 is cloe enough to negotiate, either by adding a couple million every year, building in a massive signing bonus or otherwise moving more money into the early years. If the Nats wouldn't budge then so be it. If Soto wants something better than the 2023 equivalent of the Stanton deal then so be it.

Soto is a year younger per service year (i.e. his age 23 season puts him at 4.134 while Stanton's age 24 season put him at 4.118). So ...

First 4+ service years:

JS 160 OPS+, 22 WAR (and counting)
GS 144 OPS+, 22 WAR

Ages 20-23

JS 165 OPS+, 19 WAR (and counting)
GS 138 OPS+, 15 WAR

So we certainly give Soto the edge but not by a huge margin. Stanton had much more defensive value at the time, was more athletic, might have been expected to age better. The Soto deal would be 2 years longer so running one year longer in age terms. However Stanton had already missed a month+ in both 2012 and 2013 while Soto has missed very little time. The universal DH makes a super-longterm Soto deal a bit less risky than the Stanton deal was at the time.

So Soto probably deserves a better deal than the 2022 version of the Stanton deal. The Stanton deal was a shocker at the time because I don't think we'd seen a 13-year deal before and he nearly broke $300 M. Well, we've never seen a 15-year deal and this deal would be $13.5 M more than Trout's total (but 3 years longer). I'm sure the Marlins/MLB didn't want a headline number of $300 M; I'm sure the Nats/MLB don't want a headline number of $450. Move more money upfront, get the deal done at 15/$448 (Boras now can't accept a headline number of 15/$440 ... maybe 14/$440). Another way to get it done might be to give them the headline $450 total with deferment ... it's easy enough to turn 15/$440 into 13/$450 without actually spenging any extra money (and presumably not losing much value at ages 37-38).

Oops, double post. That was just meant to be an edit noting that Stanton's deal had player options. Those or some form of inflation hedge will have to be part of a 15-year Soto deal.

On the speculation front ... I forget, what's the new CBT threshold under the CBA?

For fun - go to individual teams blog sites or Twitter or Facebook for some really silly deals (basically would Washington take our backup IF and backup OF for Soto).

Realistically it should cost any team their top 3 prospects if they are high end ones plus more. It is hard to see how a deal gets done where Washington can look good. Their need are pitching, pitching, and more pitching (team ERA+ of 78). MLB.com has 5 of their top 7 prospects as RHP though, the other 2 are a SS and an OF. Fangraphs has only 3 players in Washington's system as 50's (2 50's and a 55)

FanGraphs has 14 guys in MLB as 60's but no team has 2 of them, 99 50's or better (including 60's) led by Cleveland/Tampa/Texas with 6 each (all have a 60 plus 5 50/55's). So on the prospect level I'd assume Washington wants top notch prospects and those 3 have them. Now, we all know Cleveland and Tampa won't pay $400+ million to anyone so they are out. Texas though has shown a willingness to spend this past winter (and were the ones to give A-Rod his first $250 million deal decades ago). The others with a 60 are NYY, MIA, ARI, BAL, PIT, STL, NYM, SDP, DET, SEA, TOR. The Cubs have 5 in the 50's, while the Dodgers and Red Sox have 4 each. Of those the ones who are known to be willing and able to spend are NYY, Arizona*, Baltimore*, Mets, Padres, Detroit, Seattle*, Toronto, Cubs, Dodgers, and Red Sox. The * is for ones that have spent big in the past but might not today. I'd eliminate Baltimore right away as they are in the same market as Washington and that would hurt too much I'd figure. The Mets would also be hard as they are in the same division. The perfect deal would probably be to the AL and on the west coast (so as far away as possible) thus making the favorite Texas, followed by Dodgers-Padres-then the AL clubs Toronto-Yankees-Detroit-Red Sox, then the NL Central Cubs. St Louis could do it, but I don't see them spending that prospect capital or cash capital on anyone (there is a reason they are always in contention despite being in a smaller market). My gut feel is someone like Texas or Detroit is most likely to make it happen as both have prospects and recent history of blowing wads of cash, although Soto wants to be on a team that wins a lot thus making the Dodgers and Yankees his favorites.

If they're bound and determined not to give him a record-breaking deal, then there's really no reason to trade him. Get the value he gives you; the possibility that you get what 3 years of Juan Soto is worth back in trade is not nil, but it's pretty close to it.

It's one thing to fob off a guy at the end of a big extension as he approaches 30. It's entirely another to lose the prime years of a player of Soto's caliber.

That said, if they don't sign him, it's a huge mistake. They're a rich team and he's a young dude who's been a star since he stepped on the stage as a teenager. He doesn't have Harper's inconsistency / injury worries, and he's been healthier than Trout. The Nationals would be foolish to let him go.

this feels more like an NBA-style player move circa 2020-22.

"sure, you could force me to stay here - but it would be a shame if I didn't play as well because I'm sulking, or I played well but I poisoned the locker room. or both."

Durant is trying to add to a growing list of NBA escapees on this premise.

this feels more like an NBA-style player move circa 2020-22.

"sure, you could force me to stay here - but it would be a shame if I didn't play as well because I'm sulking, or I played well but I poisoned the locker room. or both."

Well, sure except for the complete absence of that vibe from Soto, or his camp.

That said, if they don't sign him, it's a huge mistake. They're a rich team and he's a young dude who's been a star since he stepped on the stage as a teenager. He doesn't have Harper's inconsistency / injury worries, and he's been healthier than Trout. The Nationals would be foolish to let him go.

Since it increasingly looks like the Lerners are going to sell the team, the smart move would be to leave the decision to the new owners, who could create enormous goodwill by retaining Soto.

Since it increasingly looks like the Lerners are going to sell the team, the smart move would be to leave the decision to the new owners, who could create enormous goodwill by retaining Soto.

And of course make bazillions of dollars by owning a sports franchise in one of the largest and richest metropolitan areas in North America.

Well, sure except for the complete absence of that PUBLIC vibe from Soto, or his camp.

ftfy

not every agent or GM plays the same game.

we do know that a franchise player got an offer of a lot of money that got leaked and now the team is whispering that they have to trade him.

if he wants to stay in Washington, and so does the team - well, that is one heckuva weird scenario.

the team seems to be trying to poison the well on him to the fan base.

if his side doesn't react within 48 hours, then either he does indeed want to leave - or he needs new PR people. once the stakes get raised.....

"a record $440 million" is a pretty slick sell to Joe Six-Pack and even upper middle-class diehard season ticketholder.

modest nuance leaks about how much money is "backloaded" wouldn't likely stem that tide.

we do know that a franchise player got an offer of a lot of money that got leaked and now the team is whispering that they have to trade him.

In the current inflationary environment, a 15-year deal heavily back-loaded to the last 6 seasons isn’t likely to be accepted, nor be the team’s best offer, more than 2 seasons ahead of Soto’s free agency.

the team seems to be trying to poison the well on him to the fan base.

The news was out before today’s game, and the crowd gave Soto a warm welcome. Soto’s standing with the fans is solid; the Lerners are a bit more iffy, especially with the uncertainty related to a possible sale.

if his side doesn't react within 48 hours, then either he does indeed want to leave - or he needs new PR people. once the stakes get raised.....

Soto already gave a locker room interview. Among his comments:

“For me, this is the team I’ve been [with] since, what, 2015?” Soto said Saturday. “I’ve been with this team, and I feel good with it. When I get to know the city more, it feels great. Why should I need to change?”

If the Lerners, or any new owners, make a less gimmicky offer in the same ballpark, Soto probably signs, IMHO, but there is simply no evidence that Soto is NBA-pouting about his contract status.

Another factor at this moment is the role of inflation (not being political). It seems like the US will get its arms around inflation relatively soon (within the next year or two), even if requires a lot of pain via higher interest rates and a recession to do so. But at this moment, trying to project the value of money 5, 10, or 15 years from now seems tricky. For the last 15 years, if a player signed a long-term deal, the assumption would be a low-inflation environment that would make the value of $25 million five years from now not that different from the value of $25m today. But in the current climate? Even if inflation drops to "only" 5% annually for a while, that would degrade the 5th - much less 15th - year of a deal quite a bit. Mookie's massive amount of deferred money, given inflation, is making the deal look a lot better for the Dodgers than it did even a few years ago. You just never know.

On the other hand, the idea that you could be 23 years old and have $400m+ guaranteed coming your way before you were 40 is a mind-blowing proposition for pretty much the rest of us. If he blows out his knee tomorrow, he still gets the money...if he signs. Scott Boras doesn't have to worry about that.

The problem with leaving Soto to play out the string in DC is that the Nationals team has already been stripped to the girders. They won’t be competitive again before Soto becomes a free agent. They’ve already discounted the value of having Soto for the next 2.5 years to near zero.

The best case for the Nats is that they make an almost good enough offer, and fool the fan base, but then sell Soto for a massive prospect haul and cash savings. (Somehow this worked with A-Rod in Seattle when Gillick only made a joke of an offer, but fandoms are generally savvier than this).

Someone will trade for him, but between prospect loss and cash outlay, will they be able to build a championship team around him? Not easily.

If you're thinking this isn't a great offer because structuring, you're over-thinking it. The guy doesn't want to play for the Nationals -- or at least commit to them when they've stripped the team down to the studs. There is such a thing as a counter-offer.

If someone is willing to take back Strasburg and Corbin's contracts, I don't rule out the Nats letting Soto go for one blue chipper, an average position player, and a couple of live arms.

this feels more like an NBA-style player move circa 2020-22.

"sure, you could force me to stay here - but it would be a shame if I didn't play as well because I'm sulking, or I played well but I poisoned the locker room. or both."

Has any star in MLB ever done this? Operation shutdown is famous because it's the only time I think this has ever been a thing, and Derek Bell wasn't a star by anyone's estimate. MLB isn't the NBA. Good player play hard for bad teams, even when they don't want to be there. The numbers matters too much in terms of getting paid. The NBA tolerates malingering, and will discount a bad season, in a way baseball never has.

Inflation is not really a big issue here (caveated below). If you were paying out $440 million to 25000 retirees over 15 years, inflation is very relevant. But inflation for one Juan Soto is different. One Juan Soto only buys one house, eats 1000 meals a year, drives one car, buys one house worth of fuel oil etc. Most of Juan's 440 million gets invested and will earn beaucoup interest at these very high rates.

Now, that's assuming inflation comes back to 3-4% a year. Biden has managed in one year to drive us to the edge of hyper - inflation so if we continue to run 10-15% inflation, yes this deal could have an inflation issue. Adding COLA adjustments above 5% might make sense for anyone signing a long term deal right now.

Inflation is not really a big issue here (caveated below). If you were paying out $440 million to 25000 retirees over 15 years, inflation is very relevant. But inflation for one Juan Soto is different. One Juan Soto only buys one house, eats 1000 meals a year, drives one car, buys one house worth of fuel oil etc. Most of Juan's 440 million gets invested and will earn beaucoup interest at these very high rates.

That's not true. If most of Juan Soto's $440M is paid 5-15 years from now (since the contract is being reported as backloaded), then the value of it varies massively depending on whether we average 8% inflation or 4%.

If the contract was structured as $20M p.a. for 5 years, then $30M for 5 years, then $40M for 5 years, you'd have a $450M contract. At a 5% discount rate that's $295M, at 7.5% it's $244M at 10% it's only $205M.

One Juan Soto only buys one house, eats 1000 meals a year, drives one car, buys one house worth of fuel oil etc. Most of Juan's 440 million gets invested and will earn beaucoup interest at these very high rates.

From what I’ve read, that sort of austerity plan is relatively rare among those with hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more so for professional athletes in that group. The big problem is that if much of that $440M is backloaded into the last six seasons of the contract, it’s mostly earning interest for the Nationals owners, not Soto.

I really don't even know what a fair package would look like from the Nationals perspective. I mean, he has two more seasons of club control, so no matter how good he is, he should be flipped during the Winter Meetings. Just trying to thinking historically about a player this good being traded, Griffey? Piazza?

I really don't even know what a fair package would look like from the Nationals perspective.

That is what I'm also wondering, what would the Cardinals have to trade for just two year guarantee of Soto? And would it be worth it?

43. Absolutely traditional NPV says it's worse as the discount rate goes up. And that's true In the abstract but Soto will not be spending those $$ on inflated goods. He'll simply invest 90% and earn the prevailing rates on them. The loss of present value won't affect him materially like it affects you and me. It's an issue and one his agent should be thinking About but it's not a wealth game-changer for him unless inflation stays super high

Baseball trade values does that work for you - just log in and do the math. It's hot high error bars and the tool doesn't really work for a guy like Soto so caveat emptor. But even for 2.5 years you'd need to give a lot of value.

On the other hand, every day that the nationals wait reduces his value exponentially. Right now he's a guy who can affect three pennant races. In a month maybe only two.

Just trying to thinking historically about a player this good being traded, Griffey? Piazza?

Rogers Hornsby spent 1926-1929 playing for four different NL teams (Cardinals, Giants, Braves, Cubs), getting traded three times. He averaged .361/.449/.592 with 29 HR a season during those four seasons. To be fair his getting traded had far more to do with his personality than his on-field performance.

Baseball trade values does that work for you - just log in and do the math. It's hot high error bars and the tool doesn't really work for a guy like Soto so caveat emptor. But even for 2.5 years you'd need to give a lot of value.

On the other hand, every day that the nationals wait reduces his value exponentially. Right now he's a guy who can affect three pennant races so if you plan to deal him, do it now.

I'd just hold onto him for the duration and see what happens

Just trying to thinking historically about a player this good being traded, Griffey? Piazza?

Frank Robinson, Reggie, Mookie, ARod, Rickey, Seaver. Robinson was pre-FA of course so that was just stupidity. Reggie & Mookie were pending FAs; ARod was under his first big contract. I don't recall Rickey's situation. Was Seaver money-related or just Mets stupidity?

Held onto then walked: Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Unit (essentially), Pujols. (EDIT: and of course Harper; and ARod from Seattle; several others)

Of course most of those weren't as young as Soto, some not as early in their careers. Of course there have been trades of young guys who turned into superstars but, with the exception of the bad old days of greedy owners selling players, it's a fair bet the trading team didn't realize what they were giving up.

So a trade of a proven 23-yo superstar? Not many of those but of course there haven't been that many proven 23-yo superstars.

But I'm not sure why folks are expecting a massive return. We saw Mookie traded just a couple of years ago. The Red Sox got good return under the circumstances (circumstances entirely of the Red Sox making methinks). Of course a team would be getting 2(+?) years of Soto vs 1 of Mookie. But an extra 7 WAR isn't gonna net you an extra top 10 prospect. The questions the Nats have to answer for themselves are how much money do they want to dump in the trade (going straight to the owners' pockets) and do they want ML-ready talent (Alex Verdugo) or longer-term rebuild talent (the Darvish trade is the most recent I can think of)?

If memory serves, you are no longer allowed to come to an agreement on a long-term deal before a trade. Other than the Dodgers or Yankees, I don't know that any team can guarantee itself that it can sign him long-term and I'm not sure if Boras has never signed such a deal prior to FA before. (I've always argued and still believe that he would advise his client to do so if you make his client a good enough offer ... it's finding the point where Boras thinks it's good enough while it still being better for the team than just waiting for the FA.)

My sense is you would need Weimar Republic inflation for $30 million a year to be a problem.
The issue should be the increase in player salaries over time.

But I'm not sure why folks are expecting a massive return.

That is what I'm thinking, at the same time, the definition of massive return has to be considered.

And just looking at it from a Cardinal fan specific viewpoint, a team that has a pretty good prospect list, do you trade Jordan Walker? Do you trade Nolan Gorman, when there is a very decent chance Arenado might opt out of his contract this year? I can see Winn being part of a Soto package because of how far he is away from being a factor or Walker or Gorman, but not sure any two of those three would make sense considering the value that they are already offering at the major league level at the same time, Washington not getting an elite prospect, a major league ready player and another good is the minimum that they would consider, if they think they aren't going to be competitive next year and are going to be forced into trading Soto after next season anyway.

The thing is yes he is a great player, but how much value is he going to add over what you got, cost etc. I mean to be honest, it would probably take me a few hours to realistically come up with a fair trade option for both sides (and that is just a Cardinal/Nats argument... I couldn't imagine how difficult it would be to come up with trade options for 28 other teams that work and make sense to both front offices. The fact that the Cardinals might acquire him could actually tip Arenado from opting out to not opting out, so that has to also be considered.

43. Absolutely traditional NPV says it's worse as the discount rate goes up. And that's true In the abstract but Soto will not be spending those $$ on inflated goods. He'll simply invest 90% and earn the prevailing rates on them. The loss of present value won't affect him materially like it affects you and me. It's an issue and one his agent should be thinking About but it's not a wealth game-changer for him unless inflation stays super high

That's batshit crazy. He's not getting the $440M today. He doesn't get to invest anny of it right now. He's probably getting more than half of it 10+ years from now. $200M 10-15 years from now might be worth $100M, it might be worth $25M, in today's currency. That's a huge impact to Soto's future purchasing power.

While money is obviously important so are 2 other things - personal comfort wherever he ends up (ie: an environment that is good for guys from the Dominican historically, where others from there play already) and being a contending team that can afford to lose those prospects and still be a contender for years to come (big advantage for Yankees/Dodgers here).

As a Jays fan I see Toronto as a very good fit - ownership that is willing to spend (the GM said they'd go over $200 million if the situation was right), that has had stars from the DR for literally decades (George Bell/Tony Fernandez in the 80's, Jose Bautista & Edwin Encarnacion in the recent past, and Vladimir Guerrero Jr (born in Canada but raised in the DR), Teoscar Hernandez, Santiago Espinal today. But no WS titles since 1993 which would be a negative unless they can make it in the next few years.

So this news today pretty well clears things up: the Nats are just doing an incredibly amateurish job of negotiating via the media:

Héctor Gómez @hgomez27
SOURCE: The Nationals plan to make a better offer to Juan Soto, which will be their last. If Soto does not accept, he will be traded.

The only reason I can see to negotiate through the media here is if they don't think he's going to accept it, and so are hoping to lay the groundwork for saying "see, we tried."

On the other hand, a $400m offer, over no matter how many years, certainly qualifies as genuinely trying.

And on a related note, just how amazingly confident do you have to be to turn down $400m?

Well, as Snapper usually is the first to note, he's already earned about $26 M and he's virtually guaranteed to make at least $50 M over the next two years with a very high probability of getting at least another $300 M 2 years from now ... plus whatever sort of insurance Boras may have had him take out. Barring a major injury in the next 2 weeks (or the next 4 months, the most likely consequence is that he gets traded to another team that makes him a $440+ M offer. He's already set for life, his kids are already set for life, only Joe Biden's Cabal of Evil Hyper-Inflationary Socialists can stop his grandkids from being set for life. Sure, no way I could possibly turn down a deal like this, I'm way too much a nervous nelly. But he's not really taking that big of a risk.

Of course he could pull a Conforto. #### happens.

Of course Snapper is also the first to point out that once you pay taxes and your agent and Joe Biden's Cabal of Evil Hyper-Inflationary Socialists that there will barely be enough of your first $75 M left over for a new Lamborghini every year.

#58 Well I know I've observed that needs expand as your resources do. But 75M is in that sweet spot where your needs and lifestyle wants are covered and you don't have enough to get into the insanely expensive hobbies.

Of course you could get financial advice from Boris Becker. Or have a gambling habit on the general lines of John Daly. But 75M will leave all but the truly ... exceptional ... in a very secure place.

. Biden has managed in one year to drive us to the edge of hyper - inflation

What’s most amazing is how Joe Biden is also causing inflation in Brazil, Canada, Italy, the UK, New Zealand … and … just about everywhere on planet earth. Joe really is a force.

"75M is in that sweet spot"
- funny, I found a # a lot lower in that sweet spot
(says the guy who has earned more in his lifetime than Willie Mays or Hank Aaron did playing baseball)

"75M is in that sweet spot"
- funny, I found a # a lot lower in that sweet spot

I can't imagine what you're missing out on with $10M, except maybe you won't ruin the lives of all your kids and grandkids by making them lazy and entitled.

What’s most amazing is how Joe Biden is also causing inflation in Brazil, Canada, Italy, the UK, New Zealand … and … just about everywhere on planet earth. Joe really is a force.

Not to worry, every political add I have seen has assured me that they have a plan to fix it. Though with how early political adds seem to run before the elections this could be a guy running in 2024 or 2026.

What’s most amazing is how Joe Biden is also causing inflation in Brazil, Canada, Italy, the UK, New Zealand … and … just about everywhere on planet earth. Joe really is a force.

Over the past year, inflation in the United States has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries so yeah, he is.

“Over the past year, inflation in the United States has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries so yeah, he is.”

In some circles, this is considered factual and an example of logic.

#61 Oh sure. It's over the point where further money is simply an abstraction for what you might call "everyday wants and needs". But not that far over. A few decades ago somebody put that number at $14M. Factor in inflation and ... well I'm not sure where the number sits.

But my point is that it's not the kind of money that lets you get into the private jets or superyachts lifestyle. Which can drain an almost unlimited amount of money.

Over the past year, inflation in the United States has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries so yeah, he is.

Latest numbers look to have it middle of the pack-ish. But this is not my field of expertise so I could be not looking at it right.

In some circles, this is considered factual and an example of logic.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:

By early 2021, however, U.S. inflation increasingly diverged from the other countries. U.S. core CPI grew from below 2% to above 4% and stayed elevated throughout 2021. In contrast, our OECD sample average increased at a more gradual rate from around 1% to 2.5% by the end of 2021. These differences in inflation readings cannot be explained by measurement issues.

And on a related note, just how amazingly confident do you have to be to turn down $400m?

Left completely undiscussed in in this thread is that Soto is having a pretty ordinary year, for him at least. Yeah, maybe his BABIP will rally along with his HR/FB, but he could just as easily keep sliding (yes that was alluded to above, in terms of comps). He has pretty minimal defensive and baserunning value.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:

By early 2021, however, U.S. inflation increasingly diverged from the other countries. U.S. core CPI grew from below 2% to above 4% and stayed elevated throughout 2021. In contrast, our OECD sample average increased at a more gradual rate from around 1% to 2.5% by the end of 2021. These differences in inflation readings cannot be explained by measurement issues.

Who could have guessed that dropping $3 trillion of free money on an economy that was already having labor and goods shortages would have caused inflation? Only someone with a brain.

By early 2021, however, U.S. inflation increasingly diverged from the other countries.

More evidence that Joe is supernatural -- he caused U.S. inflation to diverge from "the other countries" without ever having signed a spending bill!

Who could have guessed that dropping $3 trillion of free money on an economy that was already having labor and goods shortages would have caused inflation? Only someone with a brain.

But of course, repealing the Republican Tax Scam is out of the question.

But of course, repealing the Republican Tax Scam is out of the question.

It's not, but what's the left going to offer in trade for that? How about we repeal the Trump tax cuts in exchange for ending all the COVID welfare expansions, and removing all restrictions on oil and gas exploration in the US? Triple whammy to reduce inflation.

They shouldn't have to trade anything. In fact, to fight inflation and reduce the deficit they should raise taxes even more (so long as they leave the middle class alone) without having to pay a tribute to the GOP's corporate masters.

Our inflation is the direct result of printing money in the form of all the pandemic giveaways. It's that simple. Europe can't really be compared since February because they will have inflation due to Putin cutting off oil and gas. We would be completely insulated from that but Biden refuses to any new domestic production (buy an EV if you'd or like it)!

Trump actually did the first payment but biden did the damage printing money in an overheated economy.

As for inflation affecting Soto, inflation is based on a basket of household goods that we all use. Soto can only spend so much on household goods. He's not purchasing $449 million of things. Inflation measure purchasing power issues. He will likely buy a bunch of stocks, bonds and real estate with his cash. How much he has to pay for it and how much it appreciates /depreciates in value may or may not go up and down with inflation

All of us live in a world where inflation matters. He won't be. This is why so many CEOs are progressives - they are insulated from the stupidity of their Financial views because they have so much money.

Left completely undiscussed in in this thread is that Soto is having a pretty ordinary year, for him at least.

“For him” is the key there - Soto is 9th in the NL WAR, 4th in Offensive WAR (.1 from 2nd) & 6th in OPS. He’s also been much better recently, hitting .351/.510/.703 over the last 30 days. I don’t think anyone will get a discount by claiming Soto’s value declined in 2022.

“ Our inflation is the direct result of printing money in the form of all the pandemic giveaways. It's that simple.”

Welp, I’m convinced.

Biden has managed in one year to drive us to the edge of hyper-inflation

The International Accounting Standards Board has issued guidance on accounting rules in a hyperinflationary environment. It does not establish an absolute rule on when hyperinflation arises, but instead lists factors that indicate the existence of hyperinflation:[8]

The general population prefers to keep its wealth in non-monetary assets or in a relatively stable foreign currency. Amounts of local currency held are immediately invested to maintain purchasing power;
The general population regards monetary amounts not in terms of the local currency but in terms of a relatively stable foreign currency. Prices may be quoted in that currency;
Sales and purchases on credit take place at prices that compensate for the expected loss of purchasing power during the credit period, even if the period is short;
Interest rates, wages, and prices are linked to a price index; and
The cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%.


This is what Fox tells ya we're living through?

They shouldn't have to trade anything. In fact, to fight inflation and reduce the deficit they should raise taxes even more (so long as they leave the middle class alone) without having to pay a tribute to the GOP's corporate masters.

They never leave the middle class alone. Every tax increase hits the middle and professional classes, and the rich evade it. Every time.

Why do leftist always think they should get every policy they want without giving something up?

Why do leftist always think they should get every policy they want without giving something up?

I'm a centrist, and I guess I was just thinking that if a given idea is right on the merits, then we should do it without having to give someone's cronies a payoff.

The cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%

The inflationary rate can be well short of that, and still have devastating political consequences for the party in power, regardless of anyone’s preferred definition of ‘hyper-inflation’. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Nice, Clappy. Now tell us how Roe V. Wade was "settled law", like you did back in 2016 when the R's blocked Garland's nomination to the SC.

I'm a centrist,

You're as much a centrist as Snapper is Vlad Guerrero Jr.

#82, inaccurate and a non sequitur? Congratulations.

It was almost verbatim. Smug and dishonest? Congratulations.

Almost? LoL.

I'm a centrist,
You're as much a centrist as Snapper is Vlad Guerrero Jr.

I have no idea who you are.

There's the smug Dancing Monkey we know and...well. You said it. Smugly, while gloating about McConnell's refusal to go forward on confirming Garland. "What are you so worried about? SCOTUS has a long history of not revisiting 'settled law'". Paraphrased. You don't want to own it? Understandable.

I have no idea who you are.

I have some disappointing news for you.


All we need is for Ray and SBB to return and Team Dancing Monkey will be reunited.


Speaking of, where was the team on 1/6/21?

   88. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: July 18, 2022 at 04:15 PM (#6087227)
[ Ignored Comment ]
   89. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: July 18, 2022 at 04:17 PM (#6087230)
[ Ignored Comment ]

One more for the archives, Joe!

If you could put me on ignore too, that'd be great. Thanks.

If you could put me on ignore too, that'd be great. Thanks.

He only pretends to put people on ignore. He's as dishonest as Clappy.

92. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: July 18, 2022 at 05:05 PM (#6087238)
[ Ignored Comment ]

Good show!

From @barrysvrluga: The happy couple.

You said it. Smugly, while gloating about McConnell's refusal to go forward on confirming Garland. "What are you so worried about? SCOTUS has a long history of not revisiting 'settled law'". Paraphrased

Ah Bivens, never in doubt even if often wrong, to put it kindly. As most remember, the issue with Garland’s nomination was whether an opposition party Senate could decline to act on a nomination for a Supreme Court vacancy occurring in a presidential election year. I recall noting in various ways that an opposition party Senate hadn’t confirmed a Supreme Court nomination to a vacancy occurring in a presidential election year since the Grover Cleveland administration, and even that was a compromise selection after several nominations had been voted down or not acted on by the Senate. I also noted that numerous current or recent Democratic Senators had said the Senate need not act on such nominations when it was a GOP president in position to potentially make them.

I don’t recall much if any discussion of Roe in connection with Garland, for the obvious reason that his nomination was to replace Justice Scalia, an opponent of Roe. If Garland was confirmed he was another likely vote for to uphold Roe, but even if he wasn’t confirmed, and the GOP won the White House in 2016 (considered unlikely by many observers here & elsewhere as the election season went on), eventually allowing Scalia to be replaced with a like-minded jurist, it wouldn’t have changed the Court’s make-up on Roe, just extended the prior status quo. It’s possible I noted that at some point, but that is far different than falsely claiming I suggested Roe was ‘settled law’.

Bivens #82 non sequitur remains inaccurate.

Not sure what most of the last 20 or so posts have to do with Soto, but just curious, would Tyler O'Neil(or Juan Yepez), Jordan Walker, and Libertore be enough to land two years of Soto, or would that be too much? I mean that deal would give the Nationals a starting corner outfielder to make up a bit of the loss, add in a third baseman that is an elite prospect but not major league proven and a starting pitcher that is at least as good as anything they have right now(that is under 30)

The reporting is a bit thin, but suggests that the Lerners now want to sell the Nationals, rather than just take on a minority partner, so the Soto situation needs to be evaluated from that perspective. The best thing for the sale price would be to extend Soto, then sell the team with a long-term asset attached. If they can’t do that, kicking the can down the road for the new owners to deal with would be the 2nd best option. With Soto under team control through the 2024 season, and a sale possible by this fall, that’s easy to do. The worst thing for the franchise value would be to trade Soto & alienate much of the fan base, and then have to sell for a reduced price. So, I’m not sure any reasonable deal would get the Lerners to trade Soto while they’re trying to sell the team.

With such glee the right watches as the country comes unglued. The most important public policy issues of the day are now decided by a cadre of unaccountable ideologues installed through a series of accidents and dirty tricks. And just in case you were worried about other branches and levels of government intervening, the obstacles between the voters and the outcomes they prefer have never been greater. But hey, countries last forever no matter what, right?

With such glee the right watches as the country comes unglued. The most important public policy issues of the day are now decided by a cadre of unaccountable ideologues installed through a series of accidents and dirty tricks. And just in case you were worried about other branches and levels of government intervening, the obstacles between the voters and the outcomes they prefer have never been greater. But hey, countries last forever no matter what, right?

"i'M a cEnTrIsT."

But of course, repealing the Republican Tax Scam is out of the question.

Repealing the only good thing Trump ever did would be cruel. Go ahead, Increase taxes on higher incomes, capital gains, hedge funds, etc but don’t make it less appealing to invest in the US.