The Cubs apparently signed Jorge Soler today.
I hear the #Cubs won out for Jorge Soler. #Yankees tried, but didn't get him.
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 11, 2012
Bed Badler of Baseball America wrote about Soler a few days ago here. He talks about the way in which he was declared a free agent. Jim Callis wrote more about the player in February:
Yoenis Cespedes would have made fine fodder for this column had he not agreed to a four-year, $36 million contract with the Athletics shortly before we went to press. After his signing, we inserted him at No. 14 on the Top 100 and fellow Cuban outfielder Jorge Soler became the prize of the international market.
Soler, who will play this season at age 20, is six years younger than Cespedes and thus has less of a track record. In terms of tools, righthanded power is the calling card for both. There are questions as to how much they'll hit for average, but they're both plus runners underway and have strong arms.
Soler will command a contract in the same neighborhood of Cespedes, though I'm leery of the fact that Cuban defectors' performance rarely lives up to the hype (latest example: Aroldis Chapman). I'll be conservative with Soler and rank him at No. 43, sandwiched between third basemen Nolan Arenado (Rockies) and Mike Olt (Rangers).
UPDATE: Jon Heyman writes that the Cubs and Soler agreed to a 9-year contract for $30 million. This is crazy. This is the longest contract in team history and while it's a lot of money for an unproven player, it takes him through his arbitration years. As much as I didn't like this contract before it even happened, it's hard to say anything negative about a contract for $30 million over 9 years. It's surprising to me that another team didn't beat this offer by going something like 8 years and $35 million.
This essentially gives Soler 3 years in the minor leagues and would then take him through his years of club control. If the Cubs are lucky they get him up here in a couple years and it buys out a free agency year. it's not clear how long it may take him, but for someone with his talent and age 3 years in the minors is reasonable.
UPDATE: Keith Law wrote about it:
He’ll be able to opt out of his deal to undergo the regular arbitration process, however, so the Cubs’ upside on the deal itself is somewhat limited.
So if he's good he can opt out and get paid a lot of money. Otherwise the Cubs pay a lot of money for someone who isn't any good. Makes the deal look a lot worse now.
Ha, and here I go, taking my old shit re: Soriano and posting it here.
The way I’ve always understood it…Hendry didn’t want Soriano for the type of contract being bandied about. Zell and others pushed him in that direction as they attempted to pump up the value of the club, and then he had to beat Arte Moreno’s offer of 7 years.
If nothing else here is evidence of Moreno’s offer:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/13/sports/la-sp-1214-big-baseball-contracts-20111214
im happy with this.
post updated
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I’d forgotten the Angels offer was just as silly so in reality, it took every penny to get Soriano, which is usually true for most players. The team that gets the player is almost always overpaying. Just the reality of free agents.
mb, i know you’re not on board with this soler signing, but isn’t this the type of international fa thing you always wanted them to do?
@ dylanj:
I’m happy if he’s any good, but the Cubs still suck and are still going to suck for a long time. This doesn’t change that at all. I’d sure as fuck rather the money be invested in players who can actually play MLB right now. While having a strong farm system is important, it’s going to fucking suck to watch this team the next 5 years. And then, if you’re lucky you turn shit around.
we’re going to be better sooner than you think.
I wonder how Callis feels about the Aroldis Chapman crack about right now.
@ mb21:
I think we’re in for a few years of extremely shitty MLB baseball before we start seeing free agent spending again. That’s what I’m mentally preparing for.
@ dylanj:
I feel about this signing the way Ricky Bobby feels about pig hearts being transplanted into humans. It’s just exciting that they’re trying.
@ dylanj:
That’s awesome. How is this going to happen? All the prospects are going to work out and they’re going to be ready really really soon? What do you mean a lot sooner than I think? When I hear that I’m taking it that you’re thinking a year or two. 4 years? I could see that. 3? They’d have to get awfully lucky and invest a lot in free agency for that to happen, but I could see it. Good luck happens sometimes. 2 years? That’s not happening without a wild spending spree.
If the $30MM is spread over 9 years like Heyman says then it’s a drop in the bucket.
@ mb21:
Depending on if Hamels and Greinke hit the open market I think a wild spending spree is not out of the question.
@ josh:
You should be prepared for it because Theo said exactly that during the press conference and numerous other interviews since being hired. This team is not spending significant money on free agents until AFTER some prospects come up and start producing. Maybe he just means one prospect, but he even said that they wouldn’t do it until there was a steady flow of talent ready to produce from their system. I’m thinking Theo doesn’t consider steady to be two prospects.
they fucking suck is a charitable descriptive. high upside guys…love to have em
@ Rice Cube:
They’re saying the Cubs signed him to a 9-year contract with no chance for arbitration or any of that? If that’s the case then sign me up. I haven’t heard any numbers, but my guess is it’s something like $30 million for 5 years at which point the hope would be that he’d be close to being arbitration eligible. At that point he’d be making more than $30 million over the final 3+ years of his deal. If it works out that way it’s a great deal, but there are far greater odds it doesn’t.
@ dan:
It is and I love to have them too, but $30 million is a lot to spend for a high upside guy.
@ mb21:
Your guess is as good as mine, all the Tweet said was 9 years, $30MM.
MLBTR:
@ mb21:
In the Levine ESPN presser, Bruce said “numerous” media reports that it is around $30m for 9 years.
Cameron on Soler y Cubs:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cubs-win-bidding-for-jorge-soler/
Hard to disagree with this part:
Re: the Soriano stuff two threads ago.
The apocryphal information I’m referring to is the rumor that Hendry was working on a 6-year deal, and then McDonough added two years to the end of it without consulting the GM to make sure they got their guy. Hendry was supposedly in an airplane or something and cut off from communication at the time.
@ jtsunami:
Wow. That’s quite a good deal then. Post updated.
Now that Soler is actually a Cub I find myself warming to this deal (dying laughing). Still not a huge fan of the amount of money given the risk of any prospect, but nabbing so goddamn many years of cost certainty has done a ton to alleviate my concerns. I was expecting something more like 4/30, close to what was being reported a few months ago
@ Berselius:
I believe it was that Hendry was willing to go 7, but not 8 and McDonough stepped in to up the offer. That’s what I remember anyway. It doesn’t really matter though. Still a bad contract either way and it’s still a contract that had to be paid IF a team wanted Soriano. At least 2 did and probably more so you pay for what you get.
@ BerseliusYellon:
4/30 would have been nuts because if it works out you’re not really buying any surplus value. You’re paying for what you get and that’s why I hated the idea. Even 6/30 was crazy because it would take him up to arbitration at which point he’d be making lots of money. That’s if it worked out. But 9 years and $30 million changes it entirely. Even if he takes 4 years in the minor leagues (or 5, which is also possible), you’re still not going to be spending too much before he’s a free agent.
Odds are he never reaches the big leagues, but still. I’ll still like the deal, but a little less if he’s signed to an MLB contract. Giving Concepcion one was one of the silliest things I’ve seen a GM do. Just pay the guy $5 million more!
With the rising trend in locking up young talent early, I wonder if MLB is going to start seeing some players on these deals hold out
@ mb21:
Someone was arguing with me earlier this morning when I was doomsaying about Soler that the Soler money would be a signing bonus, so the Cubs would still have cost control. Wrong on two counts (dying laughing). If Geraldo Fucking Concepcion got a mlb deal you better believe Soler would. And apparently paying $30m to a guy 5 years ago means you’re saving money (dying laughing).
@ Berselius:
Position players would be more likely. I also think it depends on when the deal is presented. If it’s early on (like Longoria), it’s hard to say no. If it’s after the player is arb-eligible (Castro if he gets an offer this offseason) he’ll be much more likely to say no. Not that you didn’t already know that. (dying laughing)
Granted, everything could (and probably will) go wrong, but I’m more than a little intrigued at the possibility of a young, cost-controlled lineup core of Soler, Rizzo, Castro, Jackson. I mean, shit, even if it takes 3-4 years to see serious return on this, the only one getting anywhere near thirty would be Jackson, and he’d be all of 27.
Get some decent shit back for Garza, Dempster, and maybe LaHair…yeah, may be onto something.
Sigh, the possibilities. I give up. Hope wins. Batter my heart, oh Hope Monster.
MB wrote:
I’d forgotten about the end of contract arbitration issue. That could be cleared up by an agreement not to offer arb, if that is allowed, or a return to average salary at the end of the deal.
I don’t understand your comment about not frontloading a contract. Why wouldn’t someone go for that? There are lots of examples where this happens. You can pay for a 2 year service contract up front from lots of places at, say, a 10% discount, or you can pay a monthly service fee that costs more over the life of the contract. If you are going to pay $200 million over the life of a contract, why does it matter if it’s front loaded or not? Isn’t it better to pay more when the likelihood of staying below the salary cap/luxury tax is lower? Isn’t it better to tune your long term commitments to your long term plan? Theo and Ricketts surely have worked out a long term vision by now. If Hamilton, Garza, or others were to be signed to a long-term deal, Ricketts is on the hook for it no matter what, just like he is for Soriano. The only place I can see an issue is if the player suddenly decides to retire after year 2, and my guess is that there could be a clause that could address that contingency.
I’m just not following your reasoning, even though I reread the comments on the Soriano thread. Guess I’m dense today. Must be brain drain from the grant writing I’m trying to do while not on OV….
If this is a MLB deal then it supercedes the minimum salary and arb salaries he would’ve been paid, correct? I was having a bit of trouble with that so just needed it cleared up a bit to make sure Soler can’t double-dip.
I think the cost-controlled lineup including Castro on a contending team is probably a reach. I think he’s either very expensive by the time the Cubs contend or already a free agent and making market value.
It would be a lot nicer if all of them were coming up together. Instead the Cubs end up paying a shitload to Castro by then, have Jackson and Rizzo arb-eligible and a very cheap Soler and Baez. #ifshitworksout
Klaw: Soler has the talent of a top-5 pick
need insider for the rest, if someone wants to summarize
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=law_keith&id=8038230&_slug_=jorge-soler-talent-top-five-pick-mlb-draft&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dlaw_keith%26id%3d8038230%26_slug_%3djorge-soler-talent-top-five-pick-mlb-draft
@ Rice Cube:
Yes, but I’m not sure there’s really a difference between MiLB and MLB contracts in that sense. Maybe there is.
It’ll be interesting to see if Soler’s contract is backloaded. I bet it is, considering the arbitration issue MB and I were discussing above. @ SVB:
My guess is the last year of the contract is $5-6 million, minimum.
@ Rice Cube:
Yes. With minor league deals players are paid a signing bonus, but their salary structure is based on what players are normally paid in the minors, then enter MLB at league minimum. This wipes it all out.
SVB wrote:
Present value. If I pay you a dollar today it’s worth more than if I paid you a dollar in 10 years. The dollar will have less value in 10 years so you’d want the dollar today. If the Cubs paid someone $10 million today it’s not equal to $10 million in 5 years. $10 million in 5 years will be worth more than that (say $11 million). So $10 million today is worth $11 million in 5 years.
@ SVB:
Here’s a pretty good example: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/present-value/ (Soriano contract)
@ SVB:
Given the total number on the contract, it’s pretty much impossible for those last years to be a burden for the Cubs. Unless the deal just pays him $30m in year 9 (dying laughing)
@ SVB:
I’d guess it’s something like a $2-3 million signing bonus with the remainder backloaded. Probably something like $3 million this year (including signing bonus), $.5 million each of the next 4 years then $1 million each year after.
(dying laughing) I was thinking 9 million (dying laughing)
Cue mb’s head explosion, quote from the end of the Law article:
@ mb21:
Something else to keep in mind wrt present value is that even if inflation makes that $10m today = $11m in 5 years by inflation, having that $10m today means that you can put that money in your portfolio now and beat the inflation returns.
@ Smokestack Lightning:
ugh
@ Berselius:
That’s my plan to get rich. I just need to fool some team into thinking I’m from Cuba.
Oh well, if Soler opts out the Cubs will have a quality player anyway. Not going to complain about that.
@ Berselius:
@ Smokestack Lightning:
It’d be great if the first four years were at league minimum and then he’d have to meet some milestones to get the big money options to vest
/dreaming
Berselius wrote:
ditto
@ Berselius:
Maybe. But so far nobody else has said that. Law could be wrong.
Regardless, Cubs managed to land a talent who would have been drafted in the top ten this year had he been eligible. That’s not nothing.
@ Rice Cube:
I’m guessing that a nontrivial amount of that $30m is a signing bonus.
If he’s opting out for arb then it means he became the player the Cubs hoped he could. They can still sign him to an extension from there then.
Klaw is on ESPN1000 right now. I wasn’t listening closely, but I think he said that the arbitration opt-out clause is pretty standard, at least as standard as these type of long international signings are anyway.
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I updated the post with it and added this comment after the quote you provided:
So if he’s good he can opt out and get paid a lot of money. Otherwise the Cubs pay a lot of money for someone who isn’t any good. Makes the deal look a lot worse now.
@ Berselius:
I imagine it is, but it makes the contract much less likable. I like that the $30 million is spread out of over 9 years as opposed to 4 so I’m still fine with it, but if he’s any good they’re paying him a hell of a lot more money than $30 million.
The upside is that they have first crack at a good player.
@ mb21:
At least those arb years would still be partially cost-controlled.
Berselius wrote:
Odds are the $30 million ends up being the signing bonus. (dying laughing)
mb21 wrote:
That seems like a good problem to have if you’re a big market team.
@ mb21:
If nothing else it explains how the Cubs were able to outbid everybody else, especially the Yankees.
@ Berselius:
Depending on how the $30 million is spread out. If he’s getting $5 million the year before he’s arb-eligible and then opts out, that’s not really true. Even if he ended up being average (which I think would end up being a very good contract for the Cubs), they’d be paying a lot of money in the arb-years for an average player. If that ends up being the case they could non-tender him though.
@ mb21:
Thinking about that makes me think we need to see the annual breakdown to really understand this contract. If he’s paid next to nothing until year 7 and starts getting $7-8 million each year it could end up being a fantastic contract if he opts out. If he’s making $5 million by the time he’s arb-eligible they’re paying more for him than they’d be paying for another arb-eligible player.
@ Rice Cube:
This. I too would find a way to be okay with it if the Cubs had to pay more money because Soler’s so fucking good.
@ Rice Cube:
To some extent, yes. Keep in mind he’s likely to be making several million before arbitraiton as opposed to league minimum for most arb-eligible players. If Castro was already making $3 million he’d get about $6 million next year.
bubbles is a happy chimp
The protection for the Cubs is the length of the deal. If he is a bust, it only cost them 3.3M/year. That’s worth it for a potential top 5 draft pick level talent for a big market club.
Levine is saying that Soler’s opt-out means he can become a FA, but I think he’s just misreading Law’s report
According to Sky Andrecheck’s expected WAR model, Soler is expected to be worth anywhere from 9.4 career WAR (if 5th overall pick) to 20.7 career WAR.
From the “regular” espn article that Levine is citing
Something Rosenthal just linked
Sure hope Rosenthal is right on this one
http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/source_soler_can_earn_significantly_more_than_30_million/10989137?new_post=true
Rosenthal reiterating on the twitters that Soler cannot leave the Cubs during the 9-year deal
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Soler can NOT leave #Cubs during 9-year deal. He can only opt out of financial terms during arb-eligible years. Story:
Bubbles still happy
So we will now have Romney and Soler in our lives for the next 9 years. Bubbles is happy
anyone find josh timmers’s reference to soler as a bag of sugar to be mildly racist?
@ bubblesdachimp:
@ bubblesdachimp:
I don’t agree with his analogy. And I assume that the rule of only comparing players to players of the same race applies across species lines (dying laughing)
@ mb21:
Yeah, the breakdown would be illuminating. If it’s backloaded, the incentive will be for him to not go to arb until his projected salary starts to skyrocket. At that point if he’s worth it sign him to another big deal and be done with it.
If Soler’s making $3m a year it’s not really worth it for him to go to arb unless he’s a > 2-3 WAR player anyway, given the 40/60/80 scale. He could get super 2 as well. Something @sitrick2 mentioned on twitter was wondering how his options are going to play out. Since this is presumably a MLB deal he has to be on the 40-man
@ mb21:
@ mb21:
MB thanks for the link.
So just to continue to play devil’s advocate on this, two more thoughts.
1. Present value makes more sense if there isn’t a luxury tax, but there is. So later year salaries not only count against the bottom line, but they also count against the tax. $20million in 2018 is worth less than it would be today, regardless of the inflation formula you use, but if the premise is that the team will be more competitive then because of prospect development and FA signings, then the flexibility against the tax has added value. ARod’s annual salary now isn’t worth what it would have been when he signed it, but it significantly contributes to the Yankees be at/above the tax threshold, so it costs them more. Looks like the Yankees are at about $198 million in salary so far this year, $20M over the tax threshold. If they pay 40% on that, they’ll pay $8M. ARod contributes 15-16% of the Yankee salary cost. So his salary costs them 1.24M more than the 30-32M he’s getting this year (both 30 and 32M are reported on the web). That may not compensate completely for present value, but it certainly should figure into the equation. The Cubs can afford to get near the cap. But getting near the cap restricts future flexibility, which is an opportunity cost and a real cost to be accounted for.
2. If Hamilton is sincere about his desire to make big money for charity work, then the Cubs could offer a lower total value, front-loaded contract that would have greater present value for him. A front loaded contract at 20% less than a larger backloaded contract or one with a greater average salary over more years would result in more money in Hamilton’s pocket and less overall cost to the Cubs. This “IF” might be legit, or it might be a Hamilton bargaining ploy, as Josh-the-Cynic suggests. (dying laughing)
Anyway, it seems to me that 1 compensates somewhat for present value in the owner’s point of view, and 2 is a special case, but potentially a realistic one if Hamilton’s quotes in the SI article are to be believed.
Levine is an idiot.
@ jtsunami:
He finally issued a correction. I think it’s hilarious that he would think that the Cubs would pay $30m for a chance at 3 years of a 20 year old OF (dying laughing)
@ Berselius:
Blows my mind these guys get paid to write about this shit and they don’t know the first thing about it.
I’m glad the Cubs beat the Yankees at something good!
@ bubblesdachimp:
yea
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/06/update-on-cubs-draft-signings/
Did you guys here the Cubs signed some Cuban named Soler? Is he any good?
I like this less the more I think about it. With the arb opt-out this basically means that the Cubs paid him a $30m signing bonus.
@ Berselius:
It still depends on the structure. If it is backloaded, they might have only paid him $25M….see the frosting now? (dying laughing)
@ SVB:
They use AAV (annual average value) for luxury tax.
@ Berselius:
More than likely yes. They basically paid that money to see if he is any good at which point they’re paying him quite a bit.
@ srbutch5:
It’s a frosted cake ala Deacon in Zack and Miri Make a Porno
@ Berselius:
Can you believe this shit?
@ mb21:
I don’t know why they don’t use the NFL’s cap valuation formula, which seems to hinge on whether Mars is in Jupiter’s house on alternate Thursdays
Back to Omaha
Berselius wrote:
totally
.
.
.
.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
I’m down
@ Suburban kid:
I totally he said that too (dying laughing)
AWESOME! Let’s see…
@ WaLi:
I guess the CWS starts soon.
New Soler shit
http://www.obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/an-analysis-of-the-jorge-soler-deal-i-guess-its-worth-it-after-all.html
Suburban kid wrote:
The White Sox don’t play today, SK