Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, July 18, 2022
Boras also has invoked Alex Rodriguez as the last superstar due to be a free agent at age 25/26, and how as a free agent A-Rod received 40 percent more than the highest previous salary, which at the time was $25.2 million a season to top Kevin Brown’s previous high of $15 million. (Brown, like Scherzer, was an older star pitcher, but fairly, Brown wasn’t quite the pitcher Scherzer is.)
A-Rod set the record at $252 million which at the time was double the value of the U.S. sports record deal of $126 million for Kevin Garnett. It’s clear Boras sees Soto in that category. Remember the original estimated ask of $500 million from a year ago. That may wind up being conservative as an ask.
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. bookbook Posted: July 18, 2022 at 01:48 PM (#6087197)After 1999, Rey Ordonez only played 400ish career games. Plugging Arod into the 2000 Mets with Rey as a super sub utility infielder would have made that WS team stunning.
Boras is just doing his job pumping his client but the fact that the has to reach back to ARod tells us something about the reality of salary inflation over the last 20+ years (ARod's contract is still #12 in total value) and the plethora of buyouts. Trout could have been FA after age 25 but took a deal. Harper and Machado were FA after 25. Correa (when healthy, as close as we've seen to ARod) was 26; Stanton, Franco and Acuna would have been 26. I'm not sure Boras wants to be reminded of Bonds's rather mediocre FA outcomes.
Put that together and it tells us the main currency in signing/extending a young superstar over the last 20 years has been to give them years and security, not generally AAV. Harper reportedly turned down something like 4/$150 from the Dodgers. Among those examples, Trout whose first extension was fairly short and Correa (who knows what happened there?) went more the AAV route. So sure, Boras might well be able to get something like 6/$270 for Soto who, if that goes reasonably well, could probably add another 5/$180 or more to that and he'll end up better off ... while taking a lot more risk. If Soto wants 15 years, he's gonna have to take a non-record AAV; if he wants a record AAV (why?) he'll have to take a shorter deal.
My memory also differs on some of those memories, although my memories shouldn't be trusted. I recall Manny getting 8/$160 that same offseason (so $20 AAV ... Cots confirms) and that Sosa clocked in at $18 AAV (apparently that was the following offseason and just a 4-year deal). Checking Cot's Jeter got a 10/$190 extension that same offseason.
So in terms of AAV it was 25% better than Manny's; in terms of total value, a bit over 30% more than Jeter. 30% more than Trout's total would be about $550 M ... Trout's is just 12 years though. Perhaps more realistically ... Mookie is at 12/$365; add 25% for a 15-year contract and we're around $450 (maybe the Nats' thinking); add another 20-25% for Boras' ego and we're around 15/$550. I think I've found Boras's magic number.
EDIT: Regarding the first paragraph, it's also possible that Soto is Ted Williams or Bonds without the defense. He'll hit (well, walk :-); it's a matter of whether he'll ever do much but DH and how well he'll age ... Frank Thomas 64 WAR post-23.
because that more neatly fits the athlete's ego to be "the highest paid guy now" over "the highest paid guy over a very long period of time."
In the real world, we have seen player after player after player at almost any stage of their career take years over AAV. Of course in the case of ARod I, he had the luxury of both -- plus an opt-out plus a clause that kept him among the highest-paid.
A lot of games missed in 17, 18, 19 plus yo-yo batting stats (OPS 155, 99, 137,93 for 2017-20)? Plus the next two years are player options so a full year with a good line he ought to get a better contract.
As a batter, ARod was good, but not great. He's 82nd all-time in OPS+, tied with Duke Snider, Vlad Guerrero, Larry Doby, and Gary Sheffield (among others). Plenty good, but Mantle is 9th.
Also a good chunk of the money the Rangers owed was on the back part after the opt out clause. Obviously a risk to assume it but if healthy ARod is obviously opting out.
Soto in my opinion is the most likely active player to have a huge amount of offensive WAR at the end of their career (Bonds without the speed and defense basically). Of course you pay for that in a big market. If he's healthier than Stanton was for NYY you win big.
Sure but all of those things were true for Seager too and he got 10/$320. Those things were true for Harper a few years ago and he got his 13-year deal. (Harper clearly much less athletic than Correa.) So the question is did a team approach Correa with a Seager deal and he declined (which might have been a silly risk to take) or did nobody offer more than, say, 5/$150 in which case a $35 M reset makes sense (but the lack of a better offer doesn't). If Correa had signed a Bauer-like 40/40/25 deal with options then his deal would have made a lot more sense in any number of scenarios; the deal he signed leaves me scratching my head as to what happened; I also don't understand why nobody offered him that better short-term deal.
Somebody's gonna bust the $500 M barrier soon so it might as well be Soto. But no team wants to be first.
Y'know, the Dodgers for all their vast spending, have only done one of these monster-long deals and that was Mookie. They didn't seem to have that much concern about Seager walking, don't seem fazed at all that Trea Turner is FA at year's end (hello Mr Correa), and it turned out wisely avoided a monster buyout of Bellinger. They have only three players under contract past 2023 -- Betts, Freeman, Chris Taylor -- and just $90 M in guaranteed salary for next year. The Yanks have just 4 players signed past 2023 -- Cole, Stanton, LeMahieu and (of all people) Hicks; just $118 M committed next year, $100 the year after.
For both the Yanks and Dodgers a lot of that salary space will get eaten up by arb awards but they simply aren't the teams offering huge buyouts to young stars. I have no doubt both would make an exception in Soto's case but it's far from clear that they are making decisions based on "gee, this guy will be worth $500 M, let's give him 13 years." The Dodgers, especially on the pitching side, have been following a strategy of (over?)-paying for high-quality, shorter-term guys ... Bauer most obviously but even back in the Rich Hill, etc. years. They're much more a la carte than all-you-can-eat.
Who's Arod's top sim? Mays Again, playing in 50's in Polo Grounds 60's at Candlestick adjust Mays is better, but again, Arod is in the area.
The Duke, yeah he had comparable raw #'s to Mays in the 50's (except adjust for Ebbets vs. Polo Grounds) Mays is ahead; then Snider tailed off/injured and out while Mays was even better in his 30's than in his 20's.
Sheffield (long career that he had), Vlad, Doby and Duke each had much shorter careers than Arod. What would be their rates over 12K plate appearances (or can we project Matt Carpenter to 12K plate appearances)? They couldn't get there. You take half of Arod's career and that is a HOF SS
13 on the money like Arod or not
Turner, Correa, Seager none is close to him, period. May they all be healthy and have long careers. I will take the under on each one ending up w/300 hrs (each as an individual bet). Sure, one might do it. Does anyone think 2 of the 3 will? May they get all the dough they could ever dream of. None of them is close to Arod; less than 20 games missed from ages 25-31. How close do you think those 3 will get. Heck, Seager and Correa combined might not get there (although part of that is 2020)
There is ample proof of Arod's ability to play SS. What would his WAR have been as a SS (instead of 3b)
Who's Correa's top comp right now? Troy Tulowitzki; sounds pretty good to me, a good hit good field injury prone SS.
ARod matched up with the sluggers
Who's Mantle's #1 comp? Eddie Matthews; always want to mention him, he's the Rodney Dangerfield of all time greats.
And Mantle, I dig him, but I never was a Yankee fan, so I never got sick of him.
A-Rod had a longer career and about ten more WAR, but Schmidt had a higher OPS+ (148 to 140) and won 10 gold gloves at 3b (and deserved some of them!)
Both are certainly inner circle guys. Soto, without defense, basically has to be Ted Williams to match their careers. He’s got a chance, but many bat-first superstars haven’t aged as well as the dynamic defensive stars who are also complete offensive studs.
If I'm reading Spotrac correctly, Mookie signed that extension at 27 and it kicked in at 28 (in the peak of Covid revenue uncertainty, as I recall).
Soto is only 23. I'm not saying the man deserves or will get 500, but I am sure he "deserves" a higher AAV than Betts got.
Somehow I had lost track of Strasburg (for some reason I still had the 2019 version in mind) and didn't realize just how much Corbin is due to make.
Strasburg has a real chance to be the worst FA contract ever. So far he's been paid $35M for three seasons (one of them prorated) and delivered zero value, and he has four more left and is back on the 60-day DL. The Nats could very well end up paying ~$225M for absolutely nothing.
That being the case, I can't even fathom the amount of hubris it would take for him to demand even more money to waive his no-trade. Which is his right, yada yada yada, but...man. And of course there's absolutely zero doubt that Boras would indeed demand more.
Closest comp Carl Pavano's NYY stint, corrected for inflation but cumulative amount of salary, not p.a. Thank god that wasn't longer.
Yeah, but he got $38M TOTAL for four years. Strasburg is getting almost as much per season.
And that almost certainly cost him some money. Why shouldn't get some of that back? Do teams throw money at pre-arb phenoms who suffer career ending injuries? See Mark Prior for example.
He's saying the NTC cost him money when he signed the contract. Now, if he agrees to waive it for the team's benefit, he'll get some of it back.
If he refuses to be traded I think you dfa him and sell some random minor leaguer for $200M. Cash considerations, baby.
The trade deadline could help the Lerners separate the real versus tire kicker types given the impact of having Soto through 2024 versus a group of quality minor leaguers.
Fans are seeing that this rebuild will not be a 2 or 3 year process as this team has no quality players outside of Bell and Soto.
Ruiz and Gray look promising but are no sure bet.
Given the situation, potential new ownership might wants Soto around to put 15 to 20,000 fannies in seats for the next two years.
Otherwise many Washingtonians will all have better things to do than a trip to Nats Park where you are guaranteed a loss 7 out of 10 games.
On the other hand, some, such as Buster Olney during last night ESPN game, have suggested that new owners would want the bloody deed done before they took over, to deflect blame. However, Olney attributed that sentiment to ‘those in the industry’, rather than potential bidders, so he might be relying on sources hoping to trade for Soto.
In any event, I expect the Lerners to do whatever they think would boost the sale price, assuming that Soto’s status would have some effect.
Isnt that obvious? He's only 23 so you can build a future around him.
that sentiment doesnt make a lot of sense to me. If you pay a billion dollars for a team, and you do elect to trade Soto, do you really care how the fans feel? YOu have to be pretty insulated being in that position.
Keeping Soto still seems like the better long-term option, IMHO, or if not that, at least making a non-gimmicky best offer before trading him. The Lerners appear to disagree, unless their current posturing is designed to make a last best offer look better to Soto. Not working so far.
In terms of population and demographics Washington is a great market, but (serious question) have the Nats ever established a fan base commensurate with that? Their longest run of competitive success was from 2012 through 2019, and with 4 first place finishes and 5 postseason appearances their best attendance ranking was 5th of 15, more often it was midpack, and before and since** it's been between 11th and 14th. IMO the new owners better not imagine that Nats fans are like Cubs fans, willing to keep packing the park even when mediocrity is almost a long term given. If the Nats keep floundering, they may wind up looking like the Mets without the monster sized cable contract, and finding that their fan base is mostly fair weather.
** Not counting their first year in 2005, when the newness factor brought them to 8th.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main