Jorge Soler finally available

[Pickles]

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

I don't think there's a reasonable pathway for him to be in the MLs before 2014, and that's extraordinarily optimistic.

[Pickles]

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:

All I can say, is you didn't imply that 5 months ago, so you've seemed to change your tune.

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

You'd pay 20 million dollars for the rights to everyone of those guys? That's astonishing.

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.

Because then you'd be diversifying your risk among 4 players, and only needing to hit on 2 of them to get value.

First, Soler is riskier than any of those guys.

Second, you don't get to spread that risk out. Either he himself earns that money or he doesn't.

Thirdly, Soler got 30. Not 20. That's signifigant. And an option to opt out of his contract in his arb years if he so desires.

[Frobby]

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

In that case, I would not have done this deal unless I thought Soler was the equivalent of a BA Top 10 prospect.

[Stotle]

All I can say, is you didn't imply that 5 months ago, so you've seemed to change your tune.

This is bull****. I've clearly laid out the differences in the discussions. There was nothing even close to the idea of breaking out a bonus over 9-years. Let's say right now you wouldn't pay $50K for a car. If a year from now someone says you can have a $50K car by paying $10K now and breaking up the payments, interest free, over the next 9-years, and you said "yes", I wouldn't say you've changed your stance. I'd say the circumstances surrounding the situation are drastically different.

You are being dishonest -- it's a little embarrassing.

You'd pay 20 million dollars for the rights to everyone of those guys? That's astonishing.

Four $25 MM contracts broken out as described. Sure.

Because then you'd be diversifying your risk among 4 players, and only needing to hit on 2 of them to get value.

Make it one player. My answer is the same. Pick one, I'd probably do it. Some are fringy.

First, Soler is riskier than any of those guys.

Based on? I'm going to go ahead and say you have no reliable basis for this statement.

Second, you don't get to spread that risk out. Either he himself earns that money or he doesn't.

Make it one -- answer is the same.

Thirdly, Soler got 30. Not 20. That's signifigant. And an option to opt out of his contract in his arb years if he so desires.

You need to sort out in your head what it is you'd like to discuss. You mentioned my quote from earlier (involving an amount of $25 MM) and that's what I was responding to. Look, I'm comfortable with the position I've laid out, and that anyone who is intellectually honest in reading this discussion will see it as pretty straight forward. If you want to continue to mush around the topics, mischaracterize my positions (which couldn't be more clear), and lose track of the points you are arguing, have at it...

[The Maestro]

At 9 years/$25-30MM, IMO the O's missed the boat on this one. I woulda did this in a heartbeat. I'd rather roll the dice on a high ceiling IFA than another run of the mill 30 something to plug a hole in a ship that has many. Just sayin....

[Can_of_corn]

At 9 years/$25-30MM, IMO the O's missed the boat on this one. I woulda did this in a heartbeat. I'd rather roll the dice on a high ceiling IFA than another run of the mill 30 something to plug a hole in a ship that has many. Just sayin....

From what I have heard it is 9/30 million plus he can choose arbitration when eligible. So to win out the O's would have had to top that by an unknowable amount.

It irks me when folks just think the O's could have any player by matching the deal they signed.

[The Maestro]

From what I have heard it is 9/30 million plus he can choose arbitration when eligible. So to win out the O's would have had to top that by an unknowable amount.

It irks me when folks just think the O's could have any player by matching the deal they signed.

Well, the last thing I wanna do is irk you Corn. I don't think I said the O's coulda had him at that price, cuz Lord knows they probably didn't even get in that neighborhood. I said I woulda done this at that price, and probably would have upped it a few MM more if it meant getting him in the mix. Obviously with our track record we'll have to pay a little bit more, comes with the territory.

[Pickles]

This is bull****. I've clearly laid out the differences in the discussions. There was nothing even close to the idea of breaking out a bonus over 9-years. Let's say right now you wouldn't pay $50K for a car. If a year from now someone says you can have a $50K car by paying $10K now and breaking up the payments, interest free, over the next 9-years, and you said "yes", I wouldn't say you've changed your stance. I'd say the circumstances surrounding the situation are drastically different.

You are being dishonest -- it's a little embarrassing.

Four $25 MM contracts broken out as described. Sure.

Make it one player. My answer is the same. Pick one, I'd probably do it. Some are fringy.

Based on? I'm going to go ahead and say you have no reliable basis for this statement.

Make it one -- answer is the same.

You need to sort out in your head what it is you'd like to discuss. You mentioned my quote from earlier (involving an amount of $25 MM) and that's what I was responding to. Look, I'm comfortable with the position I've laid out, and that anyone who is intellectually honest in reading this discussion will see it as pretty straight forward. If you want to continue to mush around the topics, mischaracterize my positions (which couldn't be more clear), and lose track of the points you are arguing, have at it...

Don't be so defensive Stotle. I asked you to clarify your position; that isn't an attack on you. If you feel you've done that adequately, that's fine.

My position remains the same:

1) This is a risky contract. No, it will not bankrupt the franchise, or maybe even limit what they do in other areas, but in the chance that it returns no, little, or suboptimally on their investment.

2) I don't think it's accurate to compare the win expectations on FA investments with those of amateur ones.