Go Get Juan Soto

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Great analysis. Where can I find fWAR? I use Baseball Reference WAR (which I guess is bWAR?) because it's easily accessible on their player page. He came to the same conclusion I did, to which you characterized me as somehow not realistic, condescendingly told me to "count them if you want, then concluded that wrote "not really." With him, it's great analysis. I'm really happy to support anything I write. Charts and tables and shit. 2-D and 3-D. All you need to do is ask. Line graphs. Pie graphs. Ven diagrams. I can display it all. But the stakes grow so fucking high when you start talking down to me, I certainly am not motivated to post that on my own. So I just keep things short. "I disagree." "I can cite alternatives." It's too damn personal all the time, but I can build an argument the size of a fucking building if you'd like. I can cite logic and data and religion and biophysics and drama and poetry and philosophy.

It's great analysis because he provided data. I asked him where he gets his fWAR because I don't know where to find it. I'd like to see it. And I'm surprised that Fangraphs and BBREF are so far apart in WAR calculations.

I used bWAR for my analysis. And looking at the bWAR numbers, it's not close. If fWAR tells a different story, I'm happy to concede you are right, or at the least, there is an argument to be made.



I don't have a different response because of who said it. I had a different response because he had a relevant, and on point response to data I provided.



That is the difference between my conversations with him, and my conversations with you. You don't address points that are raised with you. You deflect and shift the conversation AND IT DRIVES ME FUCKING CRAZY. EDGY YOU'RE DRIVING ME FUCKING CRAZY.



This entire discussion arose from me refuting Ron Darling's point. Of course when the opportunity arises, you go and sign the Mega Star to the Long Term contract. And in support of that, I listed the top 10 contracts and explained why it makes sense to make that gamble.



You refuted that.

I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money

So I expanded my list to the top 20 contracts ever. And demonstrated that this is not true. Not even close. An honorable response to this is "yes, you are correct" or "no, you are dumb, and here is my proof why". Either is fine.



You didn't do that. You wrote:

there's a point at which you don't want to go higher on anybody, so I temper my desires to get Juan Soto off of somebody else's team and hope that the team is always scouting, recruiting, and developing the next Soto.

If you're wondering why I find it so difficult to discuss anything with you, it's this. Instead of refuting, or acknowledging my point, you shift. And although my better judgment tells me I should just stop, I shifted with you. And tell you sure, you can hope for that, but it's incredibly fucking unlikely that you'll be successful developing your own Soto seeing as how we've never developed a player as good as Soto in our history.



And again, a respectful response here would be (a) "you're right, it's really unlikely. I get your point" or ( "no, you're wrong. It's actually really likely, here's why". Either response is respectful.



But nope. This is you.

Well, I'd say they've developed at least two.

To which I should have said, "sure, two, four, whatever. It's still highly fucking unlikely". But no. Dumbass me took the bait and debated your two. When all along, I should have said, what I'm saying now. Whether it's zero or two or four players, it's highly fucking unlikely the Mets will develop a player as good as Soto. Can we agree on that?



I mean why can't you just say that's highly unlikely? And that signing Soto has no bearing on whether or not we develop our own Soto?



Don't you see that when you're faced with a counter argument, you don't address it. You don't acknowledge what's been said. You just shift to something else because you don't want to admit being wrong or you don't want to address the argument head on. Which is why I shouldn't have been surprised when you said:

It's probably at least as open a question as to whether they've ever successfully signed one.

I mean what? At this point I'm wondering if you're just toying with me. What does this have to do with anything? Why are you talking about this, other than, again, to shift the conversation away from the original point again. And again, I should have just let it go. But I continue to be a dumbass and answer you that yes. The Mets successfully signed Beltran and Piazza.



Agreed right? These two signings are unquestionably successful right? RIGHT?

The notion that the Mets have signed long-term deals for high-end free agents have all worked out is fine, as long as we ignore the times it didn't work out, but it frequently hasn't.

Seriously? I didn't say all of them worked out. You asked me if we had ever successfully signed one. I gave you two. IS IT THAT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY "YES, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT".



Or....come back and say I'm wrong. The Piazza and Beltran signings were NOT successful. Here's why... Literally anything but shifting the conversation again.

It's too damn personal all the time

OMG EDGY. Listen. I love you. I really do. Like family. It is JUST SO HARD TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH YOU. You like to shift arguments and I can't let anything go. We are the worst.

[Centerfield]

At the risk of shifting myself. At the end of the day. I wonder if a healthy way of looking at this is is just that you don't like big free agent signings the same way I don't like trades.



I hate nearly every trade proposal I come across. Even if everyone else agrees it's fair. When trades are made I feel like we overpaid. Even when trades work out, I go out of my way to find context at the time to show that it was a bad trade.



I think maybe you are this way about free agent signings. Looking for reasons to oppose a free agent signing because you are against the idea of free agent signings.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

It's gonna be a long winter.

[Edgy MD]

=Centerfield post_id=179610 time=1732316490 user_id=65]
At the risk of shifting myself. At the end of the day. I wonder if a healthy way of looking at this is is just that you don't like big free agent signings the same way I don't like trades.



I hate nearly every trade proposal I come across. Even if everyone else agrees it's fair. When trades are made I feel like we overpaid. Even when trades work out, I go out of my way to find context at the time to show that it was a bad trade.



I think maybe you are this way about free agent signings. Looking for reasons to oppose a free agent signing because you are against the idea of free agent signings.

[Edgy MD]

Here's some data suggesting that the Mets have indeed produced a few players as good as (or, indeed, better than) Juan Soto.





HIGH-PROFILE PRODUCTS OF METS' SYSTEM THROUGH THEIR FIRST SEVEN SEASONS AS COMPARED TO JUAN SOTO

[th]Player[/th]	[th]bWAR[/th]	[th]fWAR[/th]	[th]Average[/th]	[th]Notes[/th]
	Tom Seaver		54.8		49.6		52.20
	Dwight Gooden		36.1		43.1		39.60		Came up around the same age as Soto. Missed around 60 games in 1987 due to cocaine suspension.
	Jacob deGrom		37.4		36.3		36.85		Missed around 100 games in 2020 due to COVID. Also missed all batting opportunities that season.
	Juan Soto		36.4		36.3		36.35		Missed around 100 games in 2020 due to COVID.
	David Wright		32.3		34.9		33.60
	Darryl Strawberry		30.2		29.2		29.70
	Amos Otis		24.1		25.5		24.80		Included for fun. Did not include negative value from first two partial seasons as a Met.
	Jerry Koosman		25.8		23.1		24.45		Included through eighth season as first "season" was only 22 innings (also included) of negative value.
	José Reyes		21.1		22.3		21.70		Came up around the same age as Soto. Some weird injuries to start his career.
	Pete Alonso		20.0		17.2		18.60		Has yet to have a seventh season. Missed around 100 games in 2020 due to COVID.

Data for pitchers includes their batting WAR also. This generally augments the players on the table, but drastically detracts from Jerry Koosman's record.



The notes listed are not necessarily to be taken as caveats, only to give a more clear picture of the data and its context.



I'd be happy, if asked, to list some top free agent contracts that have turned out markedly badly for the team making the deals. I could also include extension contracts, like David Wright's, or not. I could also provide abstract clarifying how these contracts have turned out badly.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's Soto's future that is being sought after. Soto may not have even entered his prime yet. Soto might plausibly put up Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays like numbers for the next five or eight seasons.



All of your Mets other than Seaver had already peaked and were past their prime by the time they had accumulated the stats you show. If you included the ages of these players at the time those stats were accumulated, Soto would be the youngest -- easily so.

[ashie62]

Do you go "all in" on Soto or go after two Alex Bregman types, or get them all?



Farm systems do not pump out generational talent on any consistent schedule that I can see



In my eyes the Mets have less than 10 in 62 years



Seaver

Ryan

McGraw

Koosman

Strawberry

Wright

Reyes

deGrom



You can argue the names, but when that special talent becomes available, Soto perhaps, it would behoove yourselves to take an aggressive approach to signing him



I'm ok saying Soto is all that and a bag of chips. Personally I find his defense on about the same level as Marte, average-above average but his offensive numbers are on a HOF track and the age 26 season is at hand



There is an economic debate to be had on the merits of spending 700 million on a player, in this case Soto, and leaving yourself dry to do much else. It is nice that our owner can on more than but a select few



It comes down to Steve Cohen alone. Most people don't want to piss money away and I'm confident neither does Steve



He has the resources to explore options most can't. I believe Cohen to be a fan of the annuity style contract that Ohtani signed. He can earn on the dollars eventually to be paid out and lighten his own load



Whoever does sign Soto will likely have a similarly structured deal inked



Would signing Soto get the Mets over the finish line? I'd just say for everything greatly positive impactful signing there are 10 or more Jason Bays. There are no guarantees

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=179623 time=1732345548 user_id=68]
It's Soto's future that is being sought after. Soto may not have even entered his prime yet. Soto might plausibly put up Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays like numbers for the next five or eight seasons.



All of your Mets other than Seaver had already peaked and were past their prime by the time they had accumulated the stats you show. If you included the ages of these players at the time those stats were accumulated, Soto would be the youngest -- easily so.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I was speaking at the time to the question about whether the Mets ever produced a player as good as Juan Soto.

Depends on how you phrase things. I guess we truly won't know for sure until Soto's career is over. But sticking with your seven year theme because that's how many seasons Soto currently has under his belt --- how would David Wright fare in today's market if he were a 28 year old free agent today after his seventh or 2010 season? Going into 2011, he'd yet to show any signs of the back injury that would destroy the rest of his career. His numbers were down in his seasons six and seven, but only because he was playing in the original Citi Field configuration, which suppressed offense significantly. But relative to Citi Field, his numbers were still very productive.

[Centerfield]

Thank you! Excellent analysis. For Gooden, I have 33.3 bWAR through his first 7 seasons. For Soto, I have the same number as you. 36.4.



So to start, I have Soto in the lead, but let's say they are comparable. Soto's numbers are hampered in that he wasn't called up until mid-May of his rookie year, and lost all but 60 games of 2020. These are factors completely beyond his control. If you consider that his first 7 years are actually 6 years, Soto is considerably better.

Gooden had no such constraints. Any time he missed was due to his injury or suspension. And aside from the cocaine suspension, he was remarkably healthy his first 7 years.



Looking closer, if you look at what they looked like at the 7 year mark, there is no question that Gooden is not the player Soto is. Gooden started out hair on fire, with a 5.5, 12.2, and 4.5 WAR in his first three years. After that, he never reached a bWAR of 4 ever again. The four seasons heading into his age 25 year, he posted bWAR of 3.7, 3.4, 1.5, 2.5. If 25 year old Dwight Gooden were a free agent this year, he'd be coming off a year with a 3.83 ERA and 1.285 WHIP. Good, but not great numbers.



Soto, while he never had the 12.2 peak that Gooden had, is in a completely different stratosphere. His last four years are 7.1, 5.5, 5.5, 7.9. He had a .989 OPS and finished 3rd in the MVP voting.



Maybe we agree to disagree, but if you're comparing Gooden and Soto, even at age 25 it's not particularly close. And if you project each player going forward from their age 25 season onward, it's not even a conversation.



When I said that the Mets have never developed a player as good as Soto, I guess I should have specified that the Mets have never developed a position player as good as Juan Soto. I thought that was evident because (1) how do you realistically compare pitchers to position players, even WAR is a flawed stat, and (2) I'm obviously aware of the existence of Tom Seaver.



But even if you count Seaver, and Gooden, and any of the guys on your list that are close. That's what. 4 players? In the entire history of the Mets? Either way, my point remains that it is stupidly difficult and highly unlikely to develop Soto on the farm, and the likelihood of it happening in time to help this core of players, is basically negligible.



And again, you don't have to temper your desire to get Soto just because you're trying to develop your own, because you can do both! You can pursue the actual Juan Soto in free agency (where the chances to sign him, are anywhere from 25% to 50%), and you can continue to try to develop your own Soto (much lower chances), and if you happen to end up with two Juan Sotos, then it's the best problem to have in the entire world.

[Centerfield]

Anyway. Back to Soto.



Last year, the Yankees had a payroll of $309M (second behind the Mets at $317M). Steinbrenner called this unsustainable. The Yankees 2025 projection after arbitration is $229M.



https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/new-york-yankees/cap/_/year/2025https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/new-york-yankees/cap/_/year/2025



So for the sake of argument, let's say Hal agrees to open up the budget and go to $320M. That gives them about $91M to play with. Can they even afford Soto?



They need to replace (1) Soto (or bring him back), (2) Rizzo at 1B, (3) Torres at 2B, (4) Verdugo in LF, and basically their entire bullpen except Weaver. They are also looking to upgrade their rotation since Gil was terrible in the second half, Rodon remains inconsistent, Stroman sucks and Cortes is what he is. Schmidt and Cole are their only dependable starters.



Assuming they spend $45M on Soto. That leaves them 45M left. Even if you slot in Jasson Dominguez for Verdugo, that's a lot of holes to fill with $45M.

[Frayed Knot]

The Yanx also like to project the idea that they have a hard spending limit, it helps them promote the image that they're a gritty, underdog club. And while I believe

that the revenue sharing era has made them more cost conscious, at least some of this is likely a smoke screen. They did, after all, match the SFG offer for Judge at

the last minute just as they did the BoSox offer for Bernie all those years ago. So, yeah, the Hal era is different from the George era ... but only in degrees.

[Centerfield]

As if on cue, an article in today's Daily News.



https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/11/25/where-does-the-yankees-projected-2025-payroll-currently-stand/?clearUserState=truehttps://www.nydailynews.com/2024/11/25/where-does-the-yankees-projected-2025-payroll-currently-stand/?clearUserState=true



It's behind a paywall. Some items of note.

“We're in a better starting position than we were a year ago,” Steinbrenner said last week at MLB's Owners Meetings. “There's no doubt about that. Look, year after year after year after year, payrolls similar to this year and the luxury taxes they produce are not sustainable, not feasible, and that's the case for the vast majority of owners, and maybe all of the owners. “Doesn't mean in any given year I can't do what I want to do.”

Meaning, if he needs to sign Soto, he can go over the luxury tax, and even last year's payroll if he wants to.

The team's projected 2025 payroll is now approximately $231 million for competitive balance tax purposes, according to Cot's Contracts.

[MFS62]

There are too many articles being written by "experts" saying that the Mets are going to get him for me to believe they will.

I'm a Mets fan.

I won't feel confident until his signature on a Mets contract is dry.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Mets are considered the favorite, and reasonably so. But I don't think anyone who knows anything is saying it's a sure thing.



Latest buzz is that the Phillies are out, and it's down to the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays. Soto and Boras will start fielding offers in the next week, with the hope of a decision by the end of the first week of December.



If all that's true, we're within about two weeks of getting an answer to this long-standing question.



I'm hopeful. Maybe even optimistic.

[Frayed Knot]

Consider also that 'Favorite' in a four or five or six horse race means that you're the pick over each of the other clubs but not over all the other clubs combined.

It just might men that, in a five way contest, the odds might put you at 30-35% as opposed to at 20% which is where each side would be if there were no favorite.

iow, you can be tabbed as the favorite but still stand a better than even chance of losing out in the end.

[Centerfield]

I think the guys that are saying the Mets are the favorite just assume that Cohen will make the highest offer, because he's rich, and that Soto will take it, because that's the belief in the industry.



But no one has any idea if either of those things are true.



I think Cohen will make the highest offer too. But I don't have any knowledge about that. And considering how tight Cohen runs his ship, I doubt Jon Heyman or any other MLB executive knows that either. Certainly no one knows how much Hal Steinbrenner will pony up. In fact, he may not know that yet. He might have an idea of what he intends to pay, but might bite the bullet a week from now and match whatever is out there.



And we certainly don't know what Juan Soto is thinking. We can only speculate based upon what he's said. But it's entirely possible that Juan has already made up his mind that he doesn't want to play anywhere but the Yankees, and is portraying himself as chasing every dollar so that the Yankees offer will be as high as possible.



At this point, I'm just thankful as well that we have an owner that recognizes the value of the opportunity to sign Soto, has the financial means to do so, and hired the smartest guy he could find to run his team and maximize this opportunity. I'm glad we'll make a real good faith effort to sign Soto. And if he chooses to go elsewhere, it won't be for lack of trying.



I mean, after all the double talk, and excuses, and the classless belittling of good players, it's like I'm in some sort of weird, but awesome dream.

[MFS62]

According to Randy Miller of NJ.com, the free agent superstar has received contract offers from five teams, including the Yankees and Mets, has one of the highest-profile free agencies in the history of the sport could be entering the home stretch.

Per Miller, the Blue Jays, Red Sox, and Dodgers are the other teams to have submitted offers to Soto. MLB Network's Jon Morosi corroborated the report shortly after.



Later

[TheNextMetsManager]

I'm glad we'll make a real good faith effort to sign Soto. And if he chooses to go elsewhere, it won't be for lack of trying. I mean, after all the double talk, and excuses, and the classless belittling of good players, it's like I'm in some sort of weird, but awesome dream.

Like we made a good faith effort to sign Ohtani? (didn't even call him)



Like the classy way they handled Correa, no excuses.



How about all the straight talk with regards to competing in 2024 and clear, uniform message he sent to the public, Max Scherzer, and various media leaks?





---



i don't know if we're at "good faith" effort to sign Soto. I don't know if Soto is in "good faith" on his end either.



*channeling Yoda* There is no try. There is only one way Soto doesn't come to the Mets, and it's if they don't pay him enough. I know that makes sense to industry sources that put the Mets as the favorites, because it's nonsensical to have that much money and not use it to get the best free agent you might ever get the chance to flex wealth to sign. Does it make sense to Cohen? I don't know.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Are we supposed to be upset that the Mets exceeded our expectations in 2024? Maybe they lied, or more charitably, underplayed their intentions, to Max Scherzer to get him to accept a deal. Max ended up with a World Series ring and the Mets ended up with a top prospect. And went to the 2024 NLCS. I'm okay with all of that.

[Edgy MD]

Every team has a ceiling on what they'll offer. And everybody, no matter how rich, has a reason to be hush-hush about the level of that ceiling.



If the agent says, "Your offer is very generous, but we've got more impressive offers from other teams," they have no motivation to actually explicitly share who they were offered more money from and how much that is, or to even be truthful that any such offer exists.



If the Mets say, "Our owner is crazy rich, and if you tell us what the biggest offer you have on the table is, he's willing to top it by $5 million," the correct response from any worthwhile agent, is "OK, well, our biggest offer to date so far is a gajillion dollars from the Boise Bumblebees, and we'll be happy to sign for a gajillion and five."



It's a game of dollars, but it's also a game of brinkmanship and a game of bluffing.

[TheNextMetsManager]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Are we supposed to be upset that the Mets exceeded our expectations in 2024? Maybe they lied, or more charitably, underplayed their intentions, to Max Scherzer to get him to accept a deal. Max ended up with a World Series ring and the Mets ended up with a top prospect. And went to the 2024 NLCS. I'm okay with all of that.

No, but because they exceeded their own plans and expectations should not be taken as a validation of their process. If you flip a coin 162 times and get heads 89 times, you shouldn't adjust your thinking that coins flip heads .549% of the time now.



"Oh it worked out" is fine for the fan experience, but need to dig deeper to evaluate what you have for 2025.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Every team has a ceiling on what they'll offer. And everybody, no matter how rich, has a reason to be hush-hush about the level of that ceiling. If the agent says, "Your offer is very generous, but we've got more impressive offers from other teams," they have no motivation to actually explicitly share who they were offered more money from and how much that is, or to even be truthful that any such offer exists. If the Mets say, "Our owner is crazy rich, and if you tell us what the biggest offer you have on the table is, he's willing to top it by $5 million," the correct response from any worthwhile agent, is "OK, well, our biggest offer to date so far is a gajillion dollars from the Boise Bumblebees, and we'll be happy to sign for a gajillion and five." It's a game of dollars, but it's also a game of brinkmanship and a game of bluffing.

I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Guest

[Centerfield]

I'm glad we'll make a real good faith effort to sign Soto. And if he chooses to go elsewhere, it won't be for lack of trying. I mean, after all the double talk, and excuses, and the classless belittling of good players, it's like I'm in some sort of weird, but awesome dream. Like we made a good faith effort to sign Ohtani? (didn't even call him) Like the classy way they handled Correa, no excuses. How about all the straight talk with regards to competing in 2024 and clear, uniform message he sent to the public, Max Scherzer, and various media leaks? --- i don't know if we're at "good faith" effort to sign Soto. I don't know if Soto is in "good faith" on his end either. *channeling Yoda* There is no try. There is only one way Soto doesn't come to the Mets, and it's if they don't pay him enough. I know that makes sense to industry sources that put the Mets as the favorites, because it's nonsensical to have that much money and not use it to get the best free agent you might ever get the chance to flex wealth to sign. Does it make sense to Cohen? I don't know.

I don't know if they made a good faith effort to sign Ohtani. It seems like that pursuit never started. I don't know why. Maybe they didn't think he was a good option, but more likely, they knew he didn't want to come here. No matter how much money you have, the other guy has to be willing to take it.



I don't remember whatever he said about Correa, and it really doesn't matter to me what he said about Max Scherzer.



I disagree that there's no such thing as try. In fact, I'm more inclined to say that all you can do in life is try. The results are out of your hands.



Before Cohen, my idea of a good owner is someone that:



1. Is financially capable of supporting a payroll that is commensurate with your market size. We're in NY, the largest market, so be willing to spend like it.

2. Hires smart people to run the team.

3. Stays out of the way.



Cohen has done number 1. He raised payroll the minute he got here and shows no signs of slowing down. He hired Stearns (#2), who might end up being the best executive this team has ever had. And yes, he had some missteps along the way, but it's been reported that all of those were placeholders until Stearns was available. He's not stayed out of the way. And he recently quit his day job so he's not likely to ever fulfill #3. But as long as his role is advisory and he allows Stearns to do his thing, I'm willing to live with this.



I'll certainly be disappointed if we lose out on Soto. And depending on the circumstances, I may or may not have criticisms of Cohen and/or Stearns. But if we did everything in our power to get him and he leaves money on the table to sign somewhere else, what can we do?



I think Soto is important because it puts as at the next level. It gives us our version of Judge, Acuna, Harper, Ohtani, Witt. But if we don't get him, I think Stearns will build another playoff caliber team, and we might get lucky and go on another deep run in October.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Every team has a ceiling on what they'll offer. And everybody, no matter how rich, has a reason to be hush-hush about the level of that ceiling. If the agent says, "Your offer is very generous, but we've got more impressive offers from other teams," they have no motivation to actually explicitly share who they were offered more money from and how much that is, or to even be truthful that any such offer exists. If the Mets say, "Our owner is crazy rich, and if you tell us what the biggest offer you have on the table is, he's willing to top it by $5 million," the correct response from any worthwhile agent, is "OK, well, our biggest offer to date so far is a gajillion dollars from the Boise Bumblebees, and we'll be happy to sign for a gajillion and five." It's a game of dollars, but it's also a game of brinkmanship and a game of bluffing. I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

I've often wondered about that. Are all of the offers transparent? Or is there some level of bluffing involved?



There are a lot of folks who say that Boras got Tom Hicks to bid against himself pretty badly in the ARod deal.

[Edgy MD]

I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

Well, the language is legalese, but from what I have read of the Basic Agreement, I understand to forbid clubs from working in concert with each other in such a manner, and a deft agent can play a team into bidding against themselves.



And — putting aside the "gajillion" thing — why, as a player or player's agent, would you feel obliged to disclose the details of other offers freely?

[metirish]

[Benjamin Grimm]

Do we know who David Pingalore is? Is he reliable?



If the Dodgers are really only willing to sign Soto for a one- or two-year contract, then they're not a serious player here.

[Edgy MD]

On the other hand, the Dodgers have had success year after year with bringing Clayton Kershaw back on one-year deals.



He's an older guy, but there's a number out there for everybody.



If I had to choose between 10 years at $40 million per or one year at $60 million, maybe feeling confident I'd have a good chance at a very similar 10-year offer from somebody again next year, I'd have to consider the one-year grab.



That's sort of the calculus most players who accept a qualifying offer have to make, and some take the larger, shorter deal. Alonso did (and oops).

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Do we know who David Pingalore is? Is he reliable? If the Dodgers are really only willing to sign Soto for a one- or two-year contract, then they're not a serious player here.

I guess that's the thing, bio seems legit , 29 years covering sports , currently in LA



Looks like their version of a Bruce Beck or Len Berman type for you older folks