Jorge Soler finally available

[Stotle]

Out of curiosity, Stotle, what kind of WARP would you feel the Cubs need to get back to justify this kind of expenditure to an amateur?

For me, it has to be in the 10 range.

Under the current system (until Jul 2) you are seldom going to get a better deal on an int'l free agent than you are on a draft-eligible amateur. But, provided the player makes the majors, it's a fairly low threshhold to start racking up value.

Using my numbers above, in order for his arb numbers to jump past those listed he'd need to be highly productive in his first three years at the MLB level. Assuming 2-3 wins per year for those pre-arb years and you are getting 6-9 wins (valued at approx.$27 - 40 MM) for $4 MM in cost. He's likely not getting drastically more than the amounts above unless he turns into a legit top 15 in the league type of player. In that case, you may end up paying him $20-25 MM for his last three years (maybe), but will likely have already netted $50+ MM in value and the $20-25 MM for his last three years will still be less than you'd be paying for that production if you got it via free agency.

Essentially, the Cubs are taking on the risk of injury and the risk that he develops into nothing more than an average MLer (say, 1 WAR per year). The upside is a ton of surplus value; the downside is $30 MM loss with nothing to show for it -- but they get to spread that expense over 9 years, so there is essentially no risk that a complete bust of an investment will be at all impactful on the front office's ability to field a competitive team. The break even point is around just over 1 WAR for each of his years at the MLB level (assuming six years at the MLB level).

[Pickles]

Under the current system (until Jul 2) you are seldom going to get a better deal on an int'l free agent than you are on a draft-eligible amateur.

I'm not sure I agree w this. Top guys in the Rule 4 regularly pull in 5-10 million dollar signing bonuses. That hasn't been touched nearly as often in the international arena, particularly if you don't consider Japan. International guys, generally, are cheaper; of course, they do carry far more risk.

But, provided the player makes the majors, it's a fairly low threshhold to start racking up value.

At 5-10 mill, for sure. At 30 mill? That's another ball park.

Using my numbers above, in order for his arb numbers to jump past those listed he'd need to be highly productive in his first three years at the MLB level. Assuming 2-3 wins per year for those pre-arb years and you are getting 6-9 wins (valued at approx.$27 - 40 MM) for $4 MM in cost. He's likely not getting drastically more than the amounts above unless he turns into a legit top 15 in the league type of player. In that case, you may end up paying him $20-25 MM for his last three years (maybe), but will likely have already netted $50+ MM in value and the $20-25 MM for his last three years will still be less than you'd be paying for that production if you got it via free agency.

Yeah, I don't think the Cubs will be worried if he exceeds expectations to the point where he WANTS to go to arb. Obviously, they'll be thrilled.

The problem comes for them if they're writing a check to a guy who's in AAA at 26 for 7 million.

Essentially, the Cubs are taking on the risk of injury and the risk that he develops into nothing more than an average MLer (say, 1 WAR per year). The upside is a ton of surplus value

That upside is certainly there. Using your numbers, they'll pay him about 12 million through his first 3 years in the league, and he could easily lap that a few times if he becomes even just a GOOD ML outfielder. And through arb, he'll still be relatively a bargain, IF he becomes a good ML outfielder.

the downside is $30 MM loss with nothing to show for it -- but they get to spread that expense over 9 years, so there is essentially no risk that a complete bust of an investment will be at all impactful on the front office's ability to field a competitive team.

It's obviously not the worst way to spend money. Especially for a team like the Cubs w a lot of money, a bad farm, and fewer ways now to exploit that advantage in amateur acquisition.

It's still very risky imo. Maybe I'm not appreciative enough of this guys talent, but "top ten" draft pick doesn't scream out to me "can't miss." Not in the true sense of the word.

The break even point is around just over 1 WAR for each of his years at the MLB level (assuming six years at the MLB level).

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. If he was an established FA then a W equals 4.5-5 million.

But isn't the whole point of amateur acquisition to obtain talent for far cheaper than the FA market bears? And if your actually obtaining that talent for FA prices, isn't that a failure? It is imo.

If they get 6 wins out of the guy, they didn't break even. They overpaid him. That's why I asked the question I did: He needs to "outperform" the contract, or wouldn't the Cubs just have been better off spending that money on other amateurs, or even on the FA market, to mitigate risk.

Just how much he needs to outperform it, is the question I'm interested in. Like I said, the break even point for me is higher than 6; it's about 10.

[Stotle]

I'm not sure I agree w this. Top guys in the Rule 4 regularly pull in 5-10 million dollar signing bonuses. That hasn't been touched nearly as often in the international arena, particularly if you don't consider Japan. International guys, generally, are cheaper; of course, they do carry far more risk.

If by "regularly" you mean a couple of guys a year get in the 5-7 range, sure. Comparable talent is more expensive on the IFA market because it is (was) a free market. Straight forward issue. You get more risk with a 16-yr old on the IFA market and the decrease in price isn't close to making up for that risk.

At 5-10 mill, for sure. At 30 mill? That's another ball park.

It's really not. It's a straight calculation -- all that matters is talent in/production out. If you are adding talent through an avenue of acquisition and paying less than you are getting, then you are succeeding. You can make arguments at the fringes, which by necessity must speak to limited resources and a need to INCREASE the delta between cost and value, but he Cubs are not a team that needs to worry about making sure they have four good "values" on the roster in order to have the money available to fill out the rest of a playoff roster. This is also not preventing them from continuing to add amateur talent through other avenues, so the risk is relatively minimal.

Yeah, I don't think the Cubs will be worried if he exceeds expectations to the point where he WANTS to go to arb. Obviously, they'll be thrilled.

The problem comes for them if they're writing a check to a guy who's in AAA at 26 for 7 million.

Not really a huge problem, right? That wouldn't hurt the Cubs. How much has Baltimore been paying Brian Roberts for modeling a uniform these last two years? Team's still in first. Even in the case of a disaster like the one you describe, the ability of the Cubs to operate will not be affected.

That upside is certainly there. Using your numbers, they'll pay him about 12 million through his first 3 years in the league, and he could easily lap that a few times if he becomes even just a GOOD ML outfielder. And through arb, he'll still be relatively a bargain, IF he becomes a good ML outfielder.

It's obviously not the worst way to spend money. Especially for a team like the Cubs w a lot of money, a bad farm, and fewer ways now to exploit that advantage in amateur acquisition.

It's still very risky imo. Maybe I'm not appreciative enough of this guys talent, but "top ten" draft pick doesn't scream out to me "can't miss." Not in the true sense of the word.

Definitely not "can't miss", and definitely not the most cost effective way to go about things, but it's a calculated risk with upside. Having money spread out over nine years means that you don't have to worry about the contract being an albatross, and really that's all you're concerned with when you are talking about a potential payoff like this. "Risky" implies not insignificant chance at a bad outcome. I'd contend that even the worst outcome possible isn't likely to be THAT bad in the grand scheme.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. If he was an established FA then a W equals 4.5-5 million.

But isn't the whole point of amateur acquisition to obtain talent for far cheaper than the FA market bears? And if your actually obtaining that talent for FA prices, isn't that a failure? It is imo.

If they get 6 wins out of the guy, they didn't break even. They overpaid him. That's why I asked the question I did: He needs to "outperform" the contract, or wouldn't the Cubs just have been better off spending that money on other amateurs, or even on the FA market, to mitigate risk.

Just how much he needs to outperform it, is the question I'm interested in. Like I said, the break even point for me is higher than 6; it's about 10.

The whole point of amateur talent is to add talent to your system that will eventually help your MLB team. If you have finite resources, you have to also consider how big a slice of your $$ you allocate to different avenues of acquisitions. Using my numbers, it's a minimal upfront investment and insignificant annual cost. It won't limit their other acquisitions in any manner. It's great to get a supreme "deal" when acquiring amateur talent, but it's not a necessity -- particularly when you have a lot of money.

EDIT -- To be clear, I think the bolded is where you are going astray. That is only a true statement if this investment is preventing or otherwise limiting the other investments you have bolded. Because of the amount of money we are talking about, and the time frame over which it is paid, it will not limit any of those other options. So it isn't an either or. They can do all the other things you are talking about, with this acquisition just being an add-on.

[Pickles]

If by "regularly" you mean a couple of guys a year get in the 5-7 range, sure. Comparable talent is more expensive on the IFA market because it is (was) a free market. Straight forward issue. You get more risk with a 16-yr old on the IFA market and the decrease in price isn't close to making up for that risk.

Okay, I see what you're saying here, and I agree.

It's really not. It's a straight calculation -- all that matters is talent in/production out. If you are adding talent through an avenue of acquisition and paying less than you are getting, then you are succeeding. You can make arguments at the fringes, which by necessity must speak to limited resources and a need to INCREASE the delta between cost and value, but he Cubs are not a team that needs to worry about making sure they have four good "values" on the roster in order to have the money available to fill out the rest of a playoff roster. This is also not preventing them from continuing to add amateur talent through other avenues, so the risk is relatively minimal.

Not really a huge problem, right? That wouldn't hurt the Cubs. How much has Baltimore been paying Brian Roberts for modeling a uniform these last two years? Team's still in first. Even in the case of a disaster like the one you describe, the ability of the Cubs to operate will not be affected.

Definitely not "can't miss", and definitely not the most cost effective way to go about things, but it's a calculated risk with upside. Having money spread out over nine years means that you don't have to worry about the contract being an albatross, and really that's all you're concerned with when you are talking about a potential payoff like this. "Risky" implies not insignificant chance at a bad outcome. I'd contend that even the worst outcome possible isn't likely to be THAT bad in the grand scheme.

The whole point of amateur talent is to add talent to your system that will eventually help your MLB team. If you have finite resources, you have to also consider how big a slice of your $$ you allocate to different avenues of acquisitions. Using my numbers, it's a minimal upfront investment and insignificant annual cost. It won't limit their other acquisitions in any manner. It's great to get a supreme "deal" when acquiring amateur talent, but it's not a necessity -- particularly when you have a lot of money.

EDIT -- To be clear, I think the bolded is where you are going astray. That is only a true statement if this investment is preventing or otherwise limiting the other investments you have bolded. Because of the amount of money we are talking about, and the time frame over which it is paid, it will not limit any of those other options. So it isn't an either or. They can do all the other things you are talking about, with this acquisition just being an add-on.

1) I'm not in love w the idea that the Cubs have a sh--load of money to spend, so they don't really play by the same rules as other teams. I mean, it's reality and it's undeniable, but I don't like it.

2) How risky it is, is debatable. I see your point. It's not going to kill them. So, in that sense, the downside is limited. However, its well within the realm of possibility that they just slow-flushed 30 million dollars down the drain, and even for the Cubs, that isn't ideal.

3) I'm just really just trying to evaluate the deal on its own merits, in a vacuum, w/o too much consideration for the Cubs position. It's not something I think I would have liked Baltimore to do. In Baltimore's shoes, I wouldn't have gone higher than 12. How would you view the deal if Baltimore had signed him to it?

[Lucky Jim]

Okay, I see what you're saying here, and I agree.

1) I'm not in love w the idea that the Cubs have a sh--load of money to spend, so they don't really play by the same rules as other teams. I mean, it's reality and it's undeniable, but I don't like it.

2) How risky it is, is debatable. I see your point. It's not going to kill them. So, in that sense, the downside is limited. However, its well within the realm of possibility that they just slow-flushed 30 million dollars down the drain, and even for the Cubs, that isn't ideal.

3) I'm just really just trying to evaluate the deal on its own merits, in a vacuum, w/o too much consideration for the Cubs position. It's not something I think I would have liked Baltimore to do. In Baltimore's shoes, I wouldn't have gone higher than 12. How would you view the deal if Baltimore had signed him to it?

You seem to be changing the ground of the discussion, and I'm not sure why. I said a long time ago, for instance, that I didn't think Soler was a good gamble for the O's. You've been arguing throughout this that it's not a good deal for the Cubs. Why de-contextualize now?

Here's a pretty thorough discussion of the issue: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/117596-HHP-The-Cuban-Defector-Gambit?p=2650492&highlight=soler#post2650492

Now, my resistance was predicated in part on how much of the contract would be "submerged" in the minors. The 9-year length mitigates that. That said, it's not likely to be a move I make if I'm Duquette, but I think it's hard to argue that it's an enormous risk for the Cubs (as you've seemed to argue in this thread).

Finally, it's not a "vacuum" if you remove the Cubs and insert Baltimore-specific parameters.

[Stotle]

Okay, I see what you're saying here, and I agree.

1) I'm not in love w the idea that the Cubs have a sh--load of money to spend, so they don't really play by the same rules as other teams. I mean, it's reality and it's undeniable, but I don't like it.

2) How risky it is, is debatable. I see your point. It's not going to kill them. So, in that sense, the downside is limited. However, its well within the realm of possibility that they just slow-flushed 30 million dollars down the drain, and even for the Cubs, that isn't ideal.

3) I'm just really just trying to evaluate the deal on its own merits, in a vacuum, w/o too much consideration for the Cubs position. It's not something I think I would have liked Baltimore to do. In Baltimore's shoes, I wouldn't have gone higher than 12. How would you view the deal if Baltimore had signed him to it?

Were it Baltimore, I'd like it less but would still probably be fine with it so long as it didn't mean I'd be skimping on other amateur talent acquisition over the coming years (which it shouldn't, I don't think). I don't love the idea of guaranteeing $30 MM to a teenager, but I think you'll have an idea as to how that investment is paying out well before it starts to get expensive on an annual basis. So even if the worst happens, and Baltimore were to have around 10% of their payroll in 2020 devoted to a AAAA player, they should be able to plan accordingly.

I think O's fans haven't quite realized yet just how much talent Toronto, Tampa and Boston have been adding to their respective systems these last two drafts. If Baltimore has the opportunity to add a high impact prospect for just cash, and that cash doesn't mess with their other plans, they should probably do it.

I don't think Baltimore had a shot at Soler. There have only been two IFAs I've strongly pushed -- Sano and Guzman. At the time I stated I would have given Sano $4.5-5 MM and Guzman $3-3.5 MM. Guzman went for a fair bit more, so no issue there. I think Baltimore probably missed an opportunity to grab a truly special power bat on the cheap with Sano.

[Pickles]

You seem to be changing the ground of the discussion, and I'm not sure why. I said a long time ago, for instance, that I didn't think Soler was a good gamble for the O's. You've been arguing throughout this that it's not a good deal for the Cubs. Why de-contextualize now?

I don't think that's the case at all. I've argued I don't think it's a good deal because:

1) There is a very high chance of no return on that money. As poor a decision as it is to sign Mike Gonzalez for 10 million dollars, and it was, the odds of getting some kind of return are much, much higher than in this present case. That deal went about as bad as it possibly could for the O's and they still got something of value out of it. We're talking about three times the money, and a much higher risk here.

2) I don't think it's particularly illuminating to say that wins are worth 4.5 (or whatever) in the FA market, and then say, an amateur acquisition only needs to equal that to be "worth" the money. It's not the same kind of market. If you're buying wins at the FA prices in the amateur market, then you're being, at least, inefficient.

3) I brought up the Cubs and O's respective positions because part of Stotle's rationale behind the decision-making was the relative financial clout of the Cubs. I was initally speaking in a "vacuum" and only contexualized it to respond to Stotle's points.

Now, my resistance was predicated in part on how much of the contract would be "submerged" in the minors. The 9-year length mitigates that. That said, it's not likely to be a move I make if I'm Duquette, but I think it's hard to argue that it's an enormous risk for the Cubs (as you've seemed to argue in this thread).

I agree, the 9 years makes it far more palatable. I have never argued that specific to the Cubs, it was some huge risk; it's a huge risk in the sense that the risk of no or suboptimal return on that money is very high for reasons I mentioned before. I only addressed the Cubs when Stotle brought up their relative clout gives them the opportunity to take such risks.

Finally, it's not a "vacuum" if you remove the Cubs and insert Baltimore-specific parameters.

I agree. And nowhere did I say differently.

[Pickles]

Were it Baltimore, I'd like it less but would still probably be fine with it so long as it didn't mean I'd be skimping on other amateur talent acquisition over the coming years (which it shouldn't, I don't think). I don't love the idea of guaranteeing $30 MM to a teenager, but I think you'll have an idea as to how that investment is paying out well before it starts to get expensive on an annual basis. So even if the worst happens, and Baltimore were to have around 10% of their payroll in 2020 devoted to a AAAA player, they should be able to plan accordingly.

I think you'd be more than bit naive to think that the O's spending 30 million dollars on Soler wouldn't effect other cash outlays in other markets. The same is true, and of course to a much lesser degree, for the Cubs. Giving yourself the opportunity to plan around a mistake is wise; no making the mistake initially is wiser.

I think O's fans haven't quite realized yet just how much talent Toronto, Tampa and Boston have been adding to their respective systems these last two drafts. If Baltimore has the opportunity to add a high impact prospect for just cash, and that cash doesn't mess with their other plans, they should probably do it.

Again, there's no way signing that contract doesn't negatively effect BAL spending in other markets. Even if it's 8 years from now; there would be some ripple effect.

You're far more versed on the draft and MiLs than me. Personally, I think the O's drafts the last 2-3 years have been pretty solid, along w a noticeable increase in Latin talent starting to percolate. How that compares I can't say w your expertise. But, is it fair to say the O's have the best tandem of prospects in the MiLs? I think so. And our top 4 matches up w just about anybody's?

I don't think Baltimore had a shot at Soler. There have only been two IFAs I've strongly pushed -- Sano and Guzman. At the time I stated I would have given Sano $4.5-5 MM and Guzman $3-3.5 MM. Guzman went for a fair bit more, so no issue there. I think Baltimore probably missed an opportunity to grab a truly special power bat on the cheap with Sano.

Sano would have been a nice get. It's a shame we got so close and didn't ultimately pull the trigger. Sano and Soler present the same kind of risk-reward profile in my eyes, which is why I don't see why one gets 4.5 and one gets 30.

[Stotle]

I think you'd be more than bit naive to think that the O's spending 30 million dollars on Soler wouldn't effect other cash outlays in other markets. The same is true, and of course to a much lesser degree, for the Cubs. Giving yourself the opportunity to plan around a mistake is wise; no making the mistake initially is wiser.

There is no way it should affect it until potentially the last couple of years of the deal. You really think around $1MM per year for the next five years should impact what BAL does elsewhere?

Again, there's no way signing that contract doesn't negatively effect BAL spending in other markets. Even if it's 8 years from now; there would be some ripple effect.

You're far more versed on the draft and MiLs than me. Personally, I think the O's drafts the last 2-3 years have been pretty solid, along w a noticeable increase in Latin talent starting to percolate. How that compares I can't say w your expertise. But, is it fair to say the O's have the best tandem of prospects in the MiLs? I think so. And our top 4 matches up w just about anybody's?

Maybe. I think you'll likely see the disparaty between Baltimore's system and that of Boston/Tampa/Toronto really blossom over the next couple of seasons. Lots of low-level talent, particularly in Toronto. Bundy/Machado the best prospect duo in baseball? Maybe. You can make an argument for it. I don't know that I would, but that doesn't take away the quality tandem. If one of them turns out not to be an all-star it really cuts into the org's strength, however. And Baltimore didn't exactly go super high upside on this draft class (not that there was tons out there, but compare the profiles of BAL draftees vs BOS/TAM/TOR draftees and you'll see a pretty stark difference, I think).

Sano would have been a nice get. It's a shame we got so close and didn't ultimately pull the trigger. Sano and Soler present the same kind of risk-reward profile in my eyes, which is why I don't see why one gets 4.5 and one gets 30.

Soler is a twenty-year old athletic outfielder that has been playing against some of the best international competition around for some years now. Sano was a 16-year old destined for a corner position (maybe 1b) and working out at DR complexes and scrimmaging with heavily uneven talent. I'd say the risk profile is slightly different.

[Pickles]

There is no way it should affect it until potentially the last couple of years of the deal. You really think around $1MM per year for the next five years should impact what BAL does elsewhere?

Funny, but you say the EXACT opposite thing in the link Jim provided. Care to clarify? Your quote from 5 months ago.

I think whenever an organization is spending $25 MM it is going to affect other decisions that are made.

You also said:

If we were told Baltimore can buy any prospect at Low A or below for $25 MM, would anyone here support that allocation of resources?

Which is basically my point now. What's changed? Is it simply that it's the Cubs and they have more money than most teams?

[Stotle]

Funny, but you say the EXACT opposite thing in the link Jim provided. Care to clarify? Your quote from 5 months ago.

You also said:

Which is basically my point now. What's changed? Is it simply that it's the Cubs and they have more money than most teams?

Haha. Um, let's see, that little detail of the money being broken up over NINE YEARS??!!

There is a world of difference between a $25 MM signing bonus and a $25 MM contract that covers nine years of a player's career.

[Pickles]

Haha. Um, let's see, that little detail of the money being broken up over NINE YEARS??!!

There is a world of difference between a $25 MM signing bonus and a $25 MM contract that covers nine years of a player's career.

.

Well, was there ever a realistic chance that Soler was going to get a 25 million dollar signing bonus? Of course not. It was always going to be broken up. I would have guessed at least 6, although 9 is on the outer limit. Tell me you weren't operating under the assumption that he was going to get his entire salary in a lump bonus?

And, on the idea that it isn't wise to pay 25 million for a player in A ball?

[Stotle]

.

Well, was there ever a realistic chance that Soler was going to get a 25 million dollar signing bonus? Of course not. It was always going to be broken up. I would have guessed at least 6, although 9 is on the outer limit. Tell me you weren't operating under the assumption that he was going to get his entire salary in a lump bonus?

And, on the idea that it isn't wise to pay 25 million for a player in A ball?

It can only be broken up if there is a MLB deal in place. It was never guaranteed that, considering his age/experience, he would get a MLB deal. That said, 4-6 yrs was the general industry consensus as to how long the deal would be if broken down in an MLB deal. So, assuming $5 MM up front, $20 MM over four years (only 1 or 2 of which would be at the MLB level) or six years (3 to 4 of which would be at the MLB level). That's a stark contrast to six years at the MLB level.

I'd take plenty of A ball players for a 9-yr $25 MM contract without batting an eye. In fact, here's a team of them:

c - Austin Hedges

1b - Miguel Sano

2b - Gavin Cecchini

3b - Carlos Correa

ss - Francisco Lindor

of - Jackie Bradley, Jr.

of - Bubba Starling

of - Stryker Trahan

dh - Anthony Rendon

p - Jameson Taillon

p - Dylan Bundy

p - Gerrit Cole

p - Jose Fernandez

p - Jesse Biddle

Now, the pitchers obviously come with more risk, but the general principal remains the same. If I was told I can put down $20 MM right now and pick four of the above names and I can have them from today through the 2020 season for a total of $80 MM to be paid out to them between now and then I would do so with a giant grin.

[Frobby]

Pardon me for jumping into this late and not reading the preceding 12 pages. Has anyone given an opinion on how long Soler will need in the minors before he realistically is ready to play in the majors? And am I correct in assuming his 9 years includes whatever time he spends in the minors? And does this season count as part of the 9 years?

[Lucky Jim]

Pardon me for jumping into this late and not reading the preceding 12 pages. Has anyone given an opinion on how long Soler will need in the minors before he realistically is ready to play in the majors? And am I correct in assuming his 9 years includes whatever time he spends in the minors? And does this season count as part of the 9 years?

Two-to-three years, likely. And yes, it includes that time.