Go Get Juan Soto

[batmagadanleadoff]

=MFS62 post_id=178031 time=1730469094 user_id=60]
I think San Francisco and Atlanta are also in 1B - always lurking.

And it will be interesting to see how deep the pockets of Phillie ownership are.

Later

[metirish]

[batmagadanleadoff]

https://x.com/DanBartels2/status/1852339116978876865

Darling is saying that nobody should pursue Soto because the Yankees didn't win the 2024 WS? WTF?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, Ron, no move ensures a World Championship.



But he may be right that two $300-milion players are better than one $600-million player. Does he have any suggestions about who those two $300-million guys would be?



I'm pretty certain the Mets will be in on Soto, and least until and unless he asks for a tent in the parking lot. And I'm very much hoping they sign him.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm pretty certain the Mets will be in on Soto, and least until and unless he asks for a tent in the parking lot.

If that is what it takes, I would remove the stake from my Mother-in-Law's heart to anchor part of that tent.



Later

[Gwreck]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm pretty certain the Mets will be in on Soto, and least until and unless he asks for a tent in the parking lot. And I'm very much hoping they sign him.

He can have a tent in the parking lot, or his own merchandise stand, or whatever else he wants. (Incidentally, the original 10 year/opt-out after 7 deal that Rodriguez signed with Texas in 2001 turned out to be an all-time great contact signing for the club(s) he played for).

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm pretty certain the Mets will be in on Soto, and least until and unless he asks for a tent in the parking lot. And I'm very much hoping they sign him. He can have a tent in the parking lot, or his own merchandise stand, or whatever else he wants. (Incidentally, the original 10 year/opt-out after 7 deal that Rodriguez signed with Texas in 2001 turned out to be an all-time great contact signing for the club(s) he played for).

Exactly. The "these deals never work out" crowd doesn't realize that this original deal was extended for more money.

[ashie62]

I saw Zack Scott predicts 701K, Price is Right style to either Mets Yankees Giants or Nationals with Soto picking the Mets by 12/25



Doesn't seem Dodgers here with their outstanding commitments being what they are

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, Ron, no move ensures a World Championship. But he may be right that two $300-milion players are better than one $600-million player. Does he have any suggestions about who those two $300-million guys would be? I'm pretty certain the Mets will be in on Soto, and least until and unless he asks for a tent in the parking lot. And I'm very much hoping they sign him.

Love Ron. But this is dumb.



I mean, if we learned anything in this WS, is that one player making $600M doesn't ensure you win the World Series. What you need is one player making $700M, and another guy making $325M, and another guy making $365M, and another guy making and another guy making $160M and so on.



If history tells us anything, the big contracts means you'll win.



1. Ohtani. Won the WS.

2. Judge. Played in the WS.

3. Harper. Played in the WS.

4. Seager. Won the WS.

5. Yamamoto. Won the WS.

6. Cole. Played in the WS.

7. Machado. Perennial playoff contender.

8. Trea Turner. Perennial playoff contender

9. Bogaerts. Perennial playoff contender

10. ARod. Won the WS.

[metsmarathon]

monster contracts work, because stars win games. you just need to be sure to surround them with a solid cast of characters. because bums lose games. and its the bad contracts to bums that gets general managers fired.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And you have to be willing to accept that your guy is likely to be overpaid at the back end of that deal.

[Edgy MD]

I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money. And just as many that were neither one nor the other.



Nothing guarantees anything. Obviously, a team in a position to hand them out is often in a position to do a lot of things, and in the current environment, any team that makes the playoffs is a real contender for a championship.



That list certainly shows how few of the largest contracts are going to pitchers of late.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money. And just as many that were neither one nor the other. Nothing guarantees anything. Obviously, a team in a position to hand them out is often in a position to do a lot of things, and in the current environment, any team that makes the playoffs is a real contender for a championship. That list certainly shows how few of the largest contracts are going to pitchers of late.

You can't. Because these are literally the top ten.



You can list the next ten, or twenty. But these are the top contracts.

[Centerfield]

And to that end. I have a theory that the second tier contracts are the ones that go south. But I haven't checked to see if that's actually true.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money. And just as many that were neither one nor the other. Nothing guarantees anything. Obviously, a team in a position to hand them out is often in a position to do a lot of things, and in the current environment, any team that makes the playoffs is a real contender for a championship. That list certainly shows how few of the largest contracts are going to pitchers of late. You can't. Because these are literally the top ten. You can list the next ten, or twenty. But these are the top contracts.

I think its more complicated or nuanced than you present. Just off the top of my head without looking anything up, as a Met, Jacob deGrom was once the highest paid NLer and the Mets didn't win anything with him. Same with Scherzer and then Verlander. In fact, those two were the highest paid players in MLB history while with the Mets. deGrom's Rangers salary was off the charts. And while the Rangers, remarkably, then won the WS, it was no thanks to deGrom, who missed just about that entire season. Mike Trout's contract, at the time, was a record-breaker, and yet the Angels didn't even make the playoffs.



The reason those teams you listed did well is not simply because they gave out record breaking contracts, but because they were smart enough and rich enough to make other successful signings.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money. And just as many that were neither one nor the other. Nothing guarantees anything. Obviously, a team in a position to hand them out is often in a position to do a lot of things, and in the current environment, any team that makes the playoffs is a real contender for a championship. That list certainly shows how few of the largest contracts are going to pitchers of late. You can't. Because these are literally the top ten. You can list the next ten, or twenty. But these are the top contracts.

Indeed, but that just means the most recent, because "biggest ever" is a thing that ever trends upward.

[smg58]

Of course you have to be in on Soto. The Mets are freeing up more than enough money, and if you want to get to the level of consistent contention where the Yankees and the Dodgers are at, you have to be willing to pull the trigger on big deals. What makes this interesting is that at least two of the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees will not be comfortable with the ultimate asking price. So I think the question is, what price would actually make you uncomfortable?

[smg58]

PS I'm asking rhetorically, because I haven't figured out how I'd answer that question yet.

[Gwreck]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And you have to be willing to accept that your guy is likely to be overpaid at the back end of that deal.

I would reword this as: you have to be willing to potentially make difficult decisions about benching/releasing a player and the end of the contract when he's still owed money.



A 10 or 12 or 15 year always comes with an assumption of a production dropoff towards the end. What is being paid for, of course, is the superstar production at the beginning/middle. It's just money spread out more.

[Centerfield]

I think its more complicated or nuanced than you present. Just off the top of my head without looking anything up, as a Met, Jacob deGrom was once the highest paid NLer and the Mets didn't win anything with him. Same with Scherzer and then Verlander. In fact, those two were the highest paid players in MLB history while with the Mets. deGrom's Rangers salary was off the charts. And while the Rangers, remarkably, then won the WS, it was no thanks to deGrom, who missed just about that entire season. Mike Trout's contract, at the time, was a record-breaker, and yet the Angels didn't even make the playoffs. The reason those teams you listed did well is not simply because they gave out record breaking contracts, but because they were smart enough and rich enough to make other successful signings.

I don't think it's particularly complicated or nuanced. These are the top ten free agent contracts of all time in terms of total value. The type of contract that teams committed to winning give to the best players in the game who are young enough to perform over the majority of their deal. They've all been successful.



Highest AAV is a different animal altogether. Short term, high AAV deals are almost always given to older players, or players who otherwise have a question as to their durability. And as deGrom, Scherzer and Verlander demonstrated, these deals are risky.



And yes, you're absolutely correct that teams have to build around that superstar. I don't think anyone is implying we should just sign Soto then wrap up. We want Soto, then just as importantly, we want smart moves around him. And that's why we love Stearns.



In my original list, I didn't mean to list the top ten free agent signings, I meant to list the top ten overall. I didn't realize that I did that until i went back and checked. But I think this distinction is important. Clubs who sign the monster free agent contract are, at least, somewhat committed to winning. Clubs that sign their own player may be motivated to win, but might be motivated by other reasons. So let's revisit the top ten, this time including all contracts, not just free agents.



Judging these contracts on (a) whether the player performed as hoped, and ( whether the team won.



1. Ohtani. Yes and yes. Unquestionably.

2. Trout. Kind of, and no. Trout has continued to put up very good numbers, but not what you'd hope from Trout. Injury plays a big part here. And no, the Angels haven't won. The Angels are pretty much morons.

3. Betts. Yes and yes.

4. Judge. Yes and yes.

5. Machado. Yes and yes.

6. Lindor. Yes and yes.

7. Tatis. Yes and yes.

8. Harper. Yes and yes.

9 (tie). Stanton. This is an interesting one. First three years were out of this world, including an MVP. But the Marlins didn't win. As a Yankee he's battled injury, but been productive when healthy. The Yankees of course win, and Stanton was their best hitter this post-season. Let's call this a maybe.

9 (tie). Seager. Yes and yes.

9 (tie). Yamamoto. He was injured, but pitched well when healthy, and his team won the WS. Yes, for now, but we'll see if he can stay healthy.



So of the top 11, 9 were a success, with Stanton having had some level of success, and Trout being the worst result of the bunch.



Expanding further to hit the top 20.



12. Cole. Yes and yes.

13. Devers. He's only in year 1 but put up good numbers. And the Red Sox didn't win, but again, this is an example of ownership perhaps bowing to fan pressure and re-signing a hometown hero versus actually trying to compete. Maybe this one is to early to tell, but let's call it a no for now.

14. Machado. Yes and yes.

15. Turner. Yes and yes.

16. Witt, Jr. Like Devers, he just signed. But so far, yes and yes.

17. Bogaerts. Yes and yes.

18. A-Rod (2008). Yes and yes.

19. Arenado. He's dropped off of late, but largely performed well during his contract. Colorado certainly didn't win with him, but the Cards made the playoffs 2 of his 4 years. We'll call this a no.

20. A-Rod (2000) Yes and yes.



So of the next 9, 7 successes, 2 we'd say no. Of the top 20 largest contracts at least 16 resulted in both the player performing and the team winning. 4 can be considered failures.



Of those 4 failures, all were big signings by clubs retaining home grown stars (Trout, Devers, Stanton, Arenado). Each of those four, a good case can be made that the clubs weren't committed to winning. And with Stanton, you can see how the Yankees can absorb the injuries and reap the benefits of a good Stanton all the way to a World Series.

Edgy MD wrote: Indeed, but that just means the most recent, because "biggest ever" is a thing that ever trends upward.

Yes. These are the most recent. But it's 16 to 4. It's not close. It's an 80% success rate over the top 20. To suggest that there are just as many flops as successes is simply wrong.



Going back and comparing contracts historically is tougher to do. I can't just go through a list and compare. For instance, Manny Ramirez $160M contract was a monster contract at the time. Brandon Nimmo's $162M is just another contract. I'd have to go back and see where it ranked at the time, and that's simply too much work. But again, I'm highly skeptical that you'd find anywhere near an 80% failure rate to offset the top 20 listed above.



And as for going forward, I think you can surmise that the success rates will be even better. At least in terms of player performance. The apprehension around an Alonso extension is evidence that no one would give Chris Davis his contract today. Especially with just 3 good seasons under his belt. An 8 year deal to a 33 year old Miguel Cabrera is laughable.



Which brings us back to Ron Darling. Yes. A 26 year old superstar like Juan Soto is absolutely who we should be targeting. It's rare that a player of his ability and his age become available in free agency. But when they do, there's no better move you can make than to lock that player down, because there's no move that provides a better chance of success.



And no, Steve Cohen doesn't have to decide between Soto and two mid-tier players, because he has the means to sign all three. But even if he did have to make that choice, you sign Soto and fill in around him. No brainer.

[Edgy MD]

I certainly have no problem with targeting Soto.



The reality is that 29 teams could use him and there's only one, and 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 they can sign this one, great.

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: hope that the team is always scouting, recruiting, and developing the next Soto.

This is where I have felt that they haven't done the job in the past, especially the development end. I look forward to see how they up that part of the organization under Stearns.



Later

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: I certainly have no problem with targeting Soto. The reality is that 29 teams could use him and there's only one, and 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 they can sign this one, great.

So yes, of course you always want to your system to develop your own Soto. But to illustrate how hard that is, the Mets, in their 82 year history have never developed a player as good as Soto, and so the likelihood that they will in the near future is pretty low. And should we be lucky enough to do that, then we'll have two Juan Sotos and it will be the best thing in the world.



Tempering your desire to get Soto because you ultimately understand it's his decision is fine. But to color that pursuit with the idea that a Soto type deal goes bad as often as it goes good is simply incorrect. Overwhelmingly, these deals work out for the team.



And yes, there will be a point where the team isn't comfortable to go higher. But history suggests that the line isn't where we think it will be. Each of those deals had numbers that were mind-blowing at the time, and in nearly every case, you'd make that deal again if given the chance.

[Centerfield]

And it's fine to feel, as a fan, that this is not the way you want your team to be built. If you'd rather develop your talent, like Atlanta, versus compile a team of mercenaries like the Dodgers, there's no shame in saying that. I would too.



But if the idea is to win, it's important to recognize that if you don't pay Soto, your competitor will. And you'll see him and the likes of him if you're lucky enough to get to October.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Keith Law ranks this year's crop of MLB free agents. Juan Soto tops Law's list. Was anybody surprised? Here's Law's fabulous write-up of Soto:

1. Juan Soto, OF If plate discipline was a person, it would be Juan Soto. He doesn't chase bad pitches; bad pitches chase him. When MLB finally institutes a challenge system for balls and strikes, instead of using an automated system, the plan is to just ask Soto. So of course he's the best free agent in this class, and a team is going to have to back up the proverbial truck for his services — especially since he's going to start his new contract at just 26 years old. Soto was the third-best hitter in baseball this past year by wRC+, and the only two hitters who were better are going to win their league's respective MVP awards. He's led the league in walks three times, finishing second this year to his teammate Aaron Judge, and has walked more than he's struck out in every season since 2019. He has never had an OBP below .400 in seven major-league seasons. He's coming off a career high in homers, and while it's easy to just ascribe that to playing half his games with the right-field fence about 20 feet from home plate (my estimate may be off, I blame the metric system), the majority of his homers were “no-doubters” by distance. For most free agents coming off a career year, it would be wise to assume some regression is coming; in Soto's case, it could just be him entering his offensive peak. His only flaw as a player is that he's a below-average defender in right, and while his defensive metrics were better in 2024, playing in a smaller right field at Yankee Stadium may have had something to do with it. He's going to put up a bunch of 8-WAR seasons in the next 10 years, and, assuming that's the length of his contract, should still be an above-average offensive player at the end of it, even if he might move to DH by his mid-30s. I suppose it's time to retire the Childish Bambino nickname, though

.



https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5874781/2024/11/01/mlb-top-50-free-agent-ranking-keith-law/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5874781/2024/11/01/mlb-top-50-free-agent-ranking-keith-law/





I find it hard to believe that the Yankees are going to let Soto walk on over to the Mets, of all teams, to put up Mickey Mantle-like numbers for the next seven or eight years.

[Edgy MD]

If plate discipline were a person, it would be Bonds, but in the Hasn't-Been-Popped-for-Steroids Category, Soto beats most other comers, including Henderson, or Trout, or Votto, or Frank Thomas. And that's a skill that trends suggest improve with maturity.



One point Law is inadvertantly making is that, with the advent of automated ball-strike calling, he's probably only going to get better, at least in that department.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: If plate discipline were a person, it would be Bonds, but in the Hasn't-Been-Popped-for-Steroids Category, Soto beats most other comers, including Henderson, or Trout, or Votto, or Frank Thomas. And that's a skill that trends suggest improve with maturity. One point Law is inadvertantly making is that, with the advent of automated ball-strike calling, he's probably only going to get better, at least in that department.

Agree with this. Which made Nimmo's lack of discipline this year all the more surprising. I wonder if the foot injury hampered him more than we knew.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

What was expected is nonetheless eye-opening: Gerrit Cole has opted out of his contract and placed the ball in the Yankees' court. Cole made the decision Saturday, The Post's Jon Heyman confirmed, to pull out of a deal that had four years and $144 million remaining. The Yankees can prevent their ace from hitting the open market by attaching a fifth year, worth $36 million, to the existing deal that would keep Cole in The Bronx through the 2029 season.

If this somehow doesn't work out and Cole walks, that gives the Yankees more money to throw at Soto.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=178109 time=1730580262 user_id=68]






I find it hard to believe that the Yankees are going to let Soto walk on over to the Mets, of all teams, to put up Mickey Mantle-like numbers for the next seven or eight years.

[Frayed Knot]

There must be some kind of announcer disease because, as a backup for Ron Darling's comments, comes the following from Suzyn Waldman:



During a Friday appearance on “Maggie and Perloff,” Waldman posited that Hal Steinbrenner, Brian Cashman and Co. may be better off spreading the wealth this offseason rather than putting all their eggs in the Soto basket. “[Juan Soto] is really something,” Waldman said. “What he is not, is a right fielder … Are you really going to break the bank for Juan Soto and still have to put Aaron Judge in center field? … Everyone is so focused on Juan Soto. There are eight other positions on the field that you can't fill right now … If you don't fill those positions correctly you're gonna replay this year.”[/i]



Coupla things:



- "If you don't fill those positions correctly you're gonna replay this year.”

You mean suffer through a season with 94 wins and a World Series appearance?



- I was VERY surprised to see Soto get a Gold Glove nomination [does playing in the smallest RF in MLB skew the defensive metrics enough to balance out the eye test? ... I have no idea] but he's not a bad RF as Georgie Girl seems to think. He sometimes takes some funky routes to balls but he's got a legit RF arm and, at worst, I'd rate him average at his position. And while I realize that she sees a lot more MFY games than I do, I've been watching Soto since he came up and he was a division opponent for us for half his career so I'm not just basing this on a misplayed ball or two during the recent playoffs.



- Suzyn tends to get very protective of home town players and the longer you're with the pinstripes the more attached. So this sounds like she's more interested in 'protecting' Judge by getting him back to RF with less room for his large self to navigate as he ages and she sees Soto standing in the way of that plan. Will having both as OFs in 2032 present a defensive problem? Yeah, maybe. But, shyeeeet, if I'm the Yanx I'll deal with that when I get there.



- I think media types love getting behind what they consider a bunch of scrappy underdogs so the idea of buying the top talent available tends to rain on that parade.

An example: Buster Olney, who covered the Yanx in the '90s, wrote a book about the 2001. And it was fine book IMO except that his closing thesis was that that WS loss was a turning point moment that changed the MFY/George philosophy away from home grown talent plus under-the-radar trades and more towards open market buying of players developed elsewhere: Giambi, David Wells II, Matsui, ARod, Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Randy Johnson, Johnny Damon (among others) all were brought on board just in the next five seasons and those seasons weren't nearly as successful (or as popular) as the previous era so it must be cause-and-effect, right? But of course it wasn't a case of shifting to a path of choosing FAs over development it's just that when Jeter, Bernie, Pettitte, Mariano, and Posada all come up within a very small window and all quickly rise to at or near the best at their positions it means your SS, CF, LHP, Closer, and C slots are ones you don't have to fill with expensive FAs because you already had those spots covered with guys making at or near the minimum wage.

One thing Yanqui fans like to point out is that the 90's payrolls were less above the norm than were the early 21st century year so that made the first way better in their minds which in turn helped them think of the dynasty teams as scrappy underdogs, once again missing and mixing up the whole cause-and-effect thing.





Anyway, both Ronnie and Susie are announcers and not GMs so I'm not going to spend any time worrying about what think on the subject.