Cubs Win Bidding for Jorge Soler

The new collective bargaining agreement essentially puts an end to the kinds of bidding wars for young Cuban prospects that we’ve seen over the last few years, but those rules don’t go into effect for another month, so 20-year-old outfielder Jorge Soler was not bound by the new rules and was free to negotiate as large of a contract as he could get from big league clubs.

Today, the Chicago Cubs were announced as the winning bidders, and while the $30 million total price tag is not all that surprising considering what Yoenis Cespedes, Aroldis Chapman, and Leonys Martin received, the shocking part of the reported deal is the term – according to Jon Heyman, the Cubs locked up Soler for nine years.

Now, Soler is not a Major League ready player, and should probably be expected to spend most of the next couple of seasons in the minors. If he spends the first three years of the deal in the minors, this will end up just covering his six years of club control, and won’t end up buying out any free agent seasons, so perhaps the nine year term isn’t as surprising as it might sound. However, this contract structure sounds like it may motivate the Cubs to push Soler aggressively (as long as it isn’t harming his development, anyway), since they won’t have any kinds of concerns about service time leading to earlier free agency. In fact, if they can get Soler to the big leagues at some point in 2014, they may be able to squeeze out seven full years and some change from Soler before he becomes a free agent. He wouldn’t have to play all that well to justify a $30 million investment that carried him through all of his arbitration years and potentially even a year of free agency.

I’d imagine the contract probably covers this scenario to some degree, and we’ll probably see incentives that increase Soler’s pay based on when he gets to the big leagues, but this contract may make it unlikely that the Cubs ever have to go to arbitration with Soler, and that could end up being a significant cost savings down the line.

Because of the new rules that go into effect next month, this will be the last deal of its kind, but the Cubs decided to make the last one pretty interesting.

Update: It appears that the contract contains not incentives for arrival, but a total opt-out of the contract when Soler becomes arbitration eligible. So, essentially, the $30 million the Cubs paid Soler is more of a signing bonus than anything else, and makes this deal much more friendly for Soler.




Print This Post



Dave is a co-founder of USSMariner.com and contributes to the Wall Street Journal.


66 Responses to “Cubs Win Bidding for Jorge Soler”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Tim says:

    Great signing at 9 years, limits the cubs risk, and if he pans out Theo and Jed just committed a felony.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • PiratesHurdles says:

      Not really a felony.

      Say he was draft eligible, he would get $4-5 million for signing then spend 2-3 years in the minors. At that point say he pans out and plays 6 good years for the Cubs (until the end of the deal) . He would make only $1.4 million the first 3 seasons at league minimum, then three arbitration years. Even if he’s a very good player he maybe gets $8, $10, $12 million for those three seasons. The Cubs took on a lot of risk for maybe $5-6 million in savings and he still hits free agency at 29 like most young stars.

      Odds are heavily in favor of this deal being a huge bust as the only way it makes sense is for Soler to become an all-star.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        You really, really, really cannot analyze this deal in vacuum. Soler got more than he would have otherwise based on the very special circumstances mentioned in the opening paragraph of this story. Soler was the last of these big money IFA types before the new rules go into effect, and that VERY MUCH changed the market for him.

        You also can’t compare him to a draft pick, since it’s not in any way the same thing. The Cubs essentially just bought an extra Top 10 draft pick for nothing more than money, and really not an outrageous amount at that.

        It’s a good move for the Cubs, no matter how you slice it. This is exactly the kind of stuff big market teams should do, that the Cubs haven’t done enough of (pre Epstoyer, of course).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • geefee says:

        Seriously. You lost me at “say he was draft eligible.”

        He’s not draft eligible, and draft eligible prospects are worth far more than they actually receive as signings like this one would tend to indicate. Oh, and draft picks are in themselves quite valuable. Say he is what is actually is (or was til just now): a free agent.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • PiratesHurdles says:

        Oh for pete’s sake, the guy said its a felony when the Cubs clearly overpaid. My example was to illustrate the cost of a top 50 prospect to a team for 9 years, which is about $35 million. They got a raw Cuban prospect for an amount of money that could have secured a legit MLB player for 3 seasons. If everything goes right they didn’t save any money while all the risk is on their end.

        Its not a terrible move, but its not a steal either.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • PiratesHurdles says:

        Geefee, the comp was to illustrate what another team would expect to pay for a similar 9 years of a prospect who becomes a star player. In other cases the risk is much less than this contract.

        There is no doubt that the draft suppresses player value, but there is alos little doubt that this was a large overpay due to the impending rule changes. The Cubs also went way high for Concepcion and that already looks foolish.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        This isn’t “other prospects” … this is THIS prospect. You can’t analyze it from the lens of draft picks, because he’s not a draft pick. And the only resource used here was cash, which the Cubs have plenty of.

        I didn’t say it was a huge steal. I just disagreed with you that it was a likely bust. They paid about what they should have, and that’s totally cool. The money is nothing to the Cubs if it pans out, and if it doesn’t pan out, they’re out about 1.3 seasons of Alfonso Soriano. Not a crippling move by any measure.

        Also, I mean … peak value? You’re telling me Jorge Soler’s MAX over the next nine years is 7 total WAR? I think the Cubs and a bunch of other teams certainly feel there’s significant room on the other side of that equation.

        Bottom line the Cubs added a top 50 prospect for nothing more than cash. Good move.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • The Mighty Tim says:

        I can’t wait for another week or two when the Pirates start losing again so fans like you will disappear into the ether. Go away troll.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Grant says:

        I feel you pirates hurdles. I tend to agree with your point, and find the “but he ISN’T a draft pick” argument extremely lazy and annoying. You aren’t adding anything to the argument so why even say that, especially when others already have. Who cares what he is, the comparison is between two things that the cubs could theoretically spend 30 million dollars on.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        How is it lazy? He isn’t a draft pick. If Jorge Soler could have ONLY signed with the Cubs (who “drafted” him) then that MIGHT make sense. But the guy could have signed with every team, and on top of that there were extenuating circumstances with the change in IFA rules taking place next month.

        You can’t compare apples and oranges and fault the oranges because they don’t look like apples. That’s stupid. Unless you really like apples or something.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Joel says:

    Incredible steal by the Cubs. Paying $5MM/yr for a top 50 prospect through his entire peak. Great job

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • PiratesHurdles says:

      Yeah great “steal”. They are paying their top 50 prospect millions a year while eveyone else is paying thousands to top 50 guys.

      They just bought a very pricey lottery ticket.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        And? They’re the Cubs. In Chicago. Buying pricey lottery tickets is EXACTLY what they ought to be doing. And comparing this transaction to what “other top 50 prospects” cost is pointless. It’s not the same thing. Not in any way.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • PiratesHurdles says:

        Take off the Blue glasses.

        The word uses was a “steal”. Its not a steal to pay a prospect $30 million by any definition.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • PiratesHurdles says:

        In fact we have direct proof that they paid the absolute maximum to get him, there is no way this can be described as a steal. Paying peak value for an asset that by odds will depriciate isn’t anything to get excited about.

        How’s that track record on Cuban bats look?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Oh almost forgot: track record on Cuban bats?

        A) Don’t care, Jorge Soler is his own dude.
        B) That Cespedes fellow doesn’t look too shabby.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • ezb230 says:

        First, I agree that the track record for other Cubans shouldn’t matter much, as Soler is, ya know, a different person. Second, the track record for the two most recent big-bat Cubans (Cespedes and Morales before the freak injury) is fairly encouraging.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • chuckb says:

        You keep comparing apples to ice cream. Free agents are not covered under the same rules as draft picks and, therefore, their salaries or signing bonuses simply aren’t comparable. Mark Appel has 2 choices, the Pirates or college. One of them doesn’t pay. Jorge Soler has 30 choices and all of them pay. You simply cannot compare the 2 players’ choices.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      To your point about the steal: I think he made that comment based on the bad info previously in this story that it didn’t have an opt-out or anything like that.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Politically Incorrect says:

        Yeah, except they aren’t paying only $5 million a year if he pans out. He can opt-out for arbitration if he thinks it will pay him more. If Soler hits anywhere near his upside, they will be paying him far more than $30 million.

        So how was this a steal, exactly? Not saying it’s a bad deal–just saying it’s not a steal. Cubs are guaranteed to pay him $30 million even if he’s terrible, and haven’t really limited their costs if he’s really good.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Never called it a steal. I bristled at this statement: “odds are heavily in favor of this deal being a huge bust” …. I think that statement is absurd.

        It’s not a steal. They paid a pretty fair price, really. But not being a steal doesn’t mean it’s not a good move, and the right type of move for this franchise to make.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Jarrett says:

    The Cubs had to make a splash somewhere. Season ticket holders are tiring of high priced games, no wins, and thus, no secondary ticket market to unload extras. You can see pretty much any Cubs game for less than $5. Now the fans have something to talk about for a minute.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      I really disagree. This FO hasn’t been inclined in any way to appease the fan base. They’re about putting together a long-term, highly successful franchise. If they “needed to make a splash” they’ve had tons of opportunities to do so and have passed every time.

      This is about a prospect they really like, an asset that gives them a competitive advantage ($$$) and nothing more. They signed a prospect they liked because they could.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Politically Incorrect says:

        Are you related to Theo Epstein or something?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        No, I just dislike baseless claims. Saying the FO needed to make a splash is based on absolutely nothing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Joe says:

        How do you know they “passed” ( vs they were unsuccessful in their attempts to acquire talent)

        Unless you are actually part of the front office how can you just blindly assume that the lack of a FA signing represents no attempt at a FA signing? Maybe the players/opportunities you claim they “passed” on were players passing on the Cubs? Or other teams outbidding them?

        I love how you assume if they wanted someone they’d just get him, so a lack of acquisitions by default means no attempt being made. At least your claims aren’t equally basis…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Free agency was one of a handful of ways they could have “made a splash.” If they really needed to do so, they could call up Anthony Rizzo. Or trade Matt Garza. Or Ryan Dempster.

        I love how you assume big ticket FA signings were the only thing I was referencing. The fact is there’s absolutely no evidence AT ALL that the FO was “looking to make a splash” … it’s a lazy, baseless narrative. You don’t need to be a part of the inner workings of the Cubs’ front office to take that statement for what it is: garbage.

        They saw a prospect they liked, and they used part of their competitive advantage of being a big market team to go get him. Plain and simple. No need to attach other agendas to it.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jarrett says:

        Jack,

        You accuse me of baseless claims, but then you go on to speak as if you work for the Cubs. Excuse me, but who are you? You’re just another random person on the internet putting out your *opinion*, just like me.

        Do I have proof that the FO of the Cubs want to excite the fanbase? No. Do I need proof to make such a statement? Well, if I did, then there really wouldn’t be any point in Fangraphs, right?

        If you were the Cubs FO, and ticket sales were down, what would you do? Besides try to build a good team, long-term, which everybody already knows they’re trying to do.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • odbsol says:

      I’d love to find out where to get $5 Cubs tickets. Got a source?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Yinka Double Dare says:

        There were loads of them for 5 bucks or less on Stubhub earlier in the season, and there were games where even bleacher seats were 10 bucks on there. Most series still have tickets between 6 bucks and 15 bucks (not the rival Cardinals or interleague matchups, and not the prime days of Friday and Saturday, but there are a lot of cheap tickets to be had).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • richdanna says:

        StubHub. Buddy just bought some for $9 last week…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Yinka Double Dare says:

        But I don’t see any “under 5 bucks ones” anymore. Weather is too predictably nice (i.e., not going to be one of those 45 degree days with the wind whipping off the lake), the kids are out of school, and tourist season is in full swing. Tourists don’t care how terrible the Cubs are, they either 1) want to see Wrigley, or 2) are WGN or Iowa Cub fans and just want to go to games while they’re here because they don’t get the chance very often.

        I wouldn’t be shocked if some of the September games will be able to be had for under 5 bucks again though.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Kyle says:

    The contract includes opt-outs that allow him to enter arbitration.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Tom says:

      And this key point basically undercuts most of the upside in the deal.

      If he’s a stud, he opts out (and he can do this in any of his arb years); if he is underperforming he continues to collect his checks.

      as a reference, Hunter Pence will make ~35mil in arbitration (assuming he gets ~13mil in his arb 4 year next year), so depending on the structure of the contract (I assume it is a bit back loaded), there may not be an opt out.

      Yes the Cubs picked up some talent outside the normal draft process, but I don’t understand the various claims of “potential steal” – he wold need to be performing better than Hunter Pence level, and if he does then he would just opt out and go to arbitration.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • skmd says:

        if he’s a bust by the time of his arb year, the cubs let him walk. If he’s a stud, they don’t let him anywhere near an arbitration hearing, they tie him up for longer.

        in evaluating this deal, posters have to realize what it’s worth to THE CUBS. They (and I’m a Cub fan) stink top to bottom, and MLB has just slammed the door on the old way of being able to use your financial muscle to buy top-10 draft picks or IFA’s that other teams would shy away from because of the cost. Cubs only had one first round draft pick this year; they needed about 4. Well they just went out and bought one more. They have the money – by the end of this season their payrol will be about 35 mil, on a team that wouldn’t wince at paying 110-130 mil. 3.3 per year? pfft. They just paid 21 mil to GET RID OF Zambrano and Byrd, without getting anything of potential value back. Soler might not have been worth 30 mil to a stacked system like NYY, BOS or MIA, but in the desert that is the Cubs minor leagues they just got themselves an ice cold glass of water.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • “if he’s a bust by the time of his arb year, the cubs let him walk.”

        That’s not an option, though. If he is a bust, he will not opt out of his contract, so the Cubs will have to keep paying him. The Cubs would NOT be able to simply decline arbitration.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        If he’s a bust he’s not going to opt out of this contract. If he opts out of the contract and goes to arb., normal arbitration rules apply.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      If he’s a stud the Cubs have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM PAYING HIM HIS ARB RATE. None. Him becoming a stud is not the downside of this.

      The only downside is the Cubs have $30MM less today than they had yesterday. Other than that (and that cash really doesn’t matter much to a franchise like the Cubs) everything is gravy.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • chuckb says:

        But cash does matter. There’s always an opportunity cost and the cost here is not having $30 M to spend on someone else. I’m not saying this is a bad way for the Cubs to spend their $30 M — in fact, it’s probably a very good decision — but it’s simply not true to say that the Cubs can spend any amount of money they want on anyone. Spending $30 M on Soler precludes them from spending $30 M on someone else.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Antonio Bananas says:

        actually they don’t have 30M less today. It’s over 9 years. If someone says “I’ll give you 30M over 9 years” do you have 30M more in buying power today? No. It’s spread out, and because inflation erodes value, your buying power isn’t really 30M. So for the Cubs, this is good. I don’t have my Texas Instruments BAII Plus finance calucator to whip out the present value based on a 3%, 5%, and 7% inflation rate of player salaries to give us a ballpark, but I do know that 30M over the next 9 years in baseball is not 30M in present value. The Cubs aren’t giving up much at all for several key reasons:
        1) Like I said, inflation and this deal being spread over 9 years (long time) means it’s not even really 30M in buying power today.
        2) They’re the Cubs, so 30M isn’t the same to them as 30M for the Rays or Braves
        3) The Cubs want to be contenders at some point. Contenders are more willing to pay. This means that if the Cubs realistically can contend in 3 years, that’s 6 years that they might have a ton of surplus from some position. If they are more willing to spend in those years to contend, but they are already locked up with one guy, that means they have more to spend elsewhere.
        4) Trades and Draft choices are of very limited supply for the Cubs. They can better maximize their resources by doing this. If they were to draft a similar player, then there is a draft pick they don’t have. If they were to trade say Garza to someone for a player like this, that’s one less player from a trade they can get. The Cubs essentially added a first round pick or a top-level centerpiece trade prospect without having to do either.

        ANY deal can be horrible. ANY deal can be awesome. You just have to take good risks. The risk here is really very little for the Cubs. Setting aside 3M each year over the next 9 years isn’t going to hurt the Cubs. The reward though, is very high.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Jack Weiland says:

    Not really like a signing bonus, as he’s making that salary until he opts out. At that point he goes through the normal arbitration process, and stops receieving his salary from this deal.

    It’s just a normal contract with an opt-out when he becomes eligible.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • DD says:

      In which case they would end up paying MORE than $30 mil thru his arb years, assuming, for simplicity’s sake, his first 3 years are in the minors, next three are league minimum, and last three are arb years. If his deal is spread out evenly (likely not tho), they are paying him $20 mil before arbitration. Of course if he opts out, they likely have at least a big league regular, if not star, on their hands.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Right. My point is it’s not going to be the 30MM PLUS his arb. figures, as the story made it seem by comparing it to a signing bonus. It’s not a signing bonus, it’s a contract. They’re different.

        And yeah I agree: if he opts out of this deal the Cubs don’t care in the slightest, because they’ve got a good RF parked there through much of his prime.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • richdanna says:

        No chance in heck he’s making $20M prior to arbitration. He’ll make $10-12M tops if he’s lucky through year 6 of the deal.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Yinka Double Dare says:

        “No chance in heck he’s making $20M prior to arbitration. He’ll make $10-12M tops if he’s lucky through year 6 of the deal.”

        Oh, I bet it’s closer to 20 million than 10-12 through 6 years. Dayan Viciedo got 10 million for 4 years a few years ago for his age 20-23 seasons. There’s more money being thrown around now, there’s the “this is your last chance to spend big bucks on a guy without penalties” factor that probably drove up the price some, and Soler is considered at least as good a prospect as Viciedo (as far as I can tell).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Tom says:

        Jack – unless the 30mil is completely backloaded to the final 3 (or 4) arb years, that is the absolutely wrong # to be using when asking what he will get in arbitration and whether he will opt out.

        When he makes a decision on whether to go to arbittraion it will just be based on the contract value of THOSE arbitration years, not the total contract value over 9 years. Assuming he is getting paid more than $0 the first 5-6 years, he would only have to top 30mil minus whatever he’s getting paid in the first 5-6 years pre-arbitration for it to be smart to opt out.

        If he opts out he end up getting the arbitration awards + the first 6 years in his contract (which again I’m assuming is non-zero). So part of the “discount” of arbitration will be offset by what he’s getting paid prior to then over the first 5-6 years.

        I get that people are excited, but there is a lot of bad analysis being done on this.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Tom – Not sure what number you’re referencing. My statement was purely to clarify that the 30MM is not a signing bonus, as the article states. If he opts out he doesn’t get the rest of his $30MM PLUS his arbitration figure. I think that’s what you’re trying to explain, but I agree with you …

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. It shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that the contract includes opt-outs once Soler reaches arbitration. This was an extremely common practice in the Rule 4 Draft back when the CBA allowed for MLB deals to draft picks (i.e. 2011 and before).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. everdiso says:

    Since the Blue Jays didn’t sign him he obviously must suck. You can read all about it on my blog.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Cave Dameron says:

    If the Cubs wanted to spend this $30 million more wisely, they should have just traded for Vernon Wells.

    It would have worked because of the time value of money.

    Q.E.D.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mr. Observant says:

      Excellent point – and Vernon’s grit is clearly into the 4.0 to 4.5 GAR (Grit Above Replacement) range. That’s worth an additional $650,000,000.00 or so when added to his wCPF+ of 177 (weighted Clubhouse Presence Factor plus for all you stats neophytes.) That Vernon, always smiling, always jogging, always eating…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Baseball Fan says:

    Does the new collective bargaining agreement effect on Asian baseball, and the posting fee?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. prospectslol says:

    Why are people comparing him to draft picks? He was a free agent, period. He got a major league deal, period. All he has to do is put up 6 WAR over the next 9 years for the Cubs to break even…

    If this guy spends the next 3 seasons in the minors and is only an average everyday player (2WAR) for the 6 seasons after that, he’d still be worth over 60M during that stretch…. Is that not a 30M surplus value for the Cubs?

    If he’s a 3WAR player or higher, where he will probably opt out for arbitration instead of whatever figure he’s signed for currently, he will still be worth a lot more in terms of $/WAR than what he’s going to get paid.

    …and NO ONE KNOWS HIS CONTRACT YET. If he’s getting 3M signing bonus, 500K per year for the next 6 years, then 24M (5, 8, 11) over the last 3… he’d have to be damn good to get an increase in arbitration those final years… and even then the Cubs will be paying him a lot less than he’s worth.

    The only way this signing is bad is if he cannot even make it to the majors.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Joe says:

      Not entirely true – you are treating this as a capped 30 mil ceiling… which it isn’t.

      The 30mil is the FLOOR, the ceiling is at this point unknown because he can opt out along the way.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      “The only way this signing is bad is if he cannot even make it to the majors.”

      Agree. And a 30MM liability over nine years for a team in Chicago is really not much of a risk.

      I do agree with Joe, though, that you’re treating the 30MM like the cap instead of the floor. However, realistically how much more is he going to get if he goes arb? 45MM? And at any rate, the more he gets by going arb the better he’s performing. At which point the Cubs don’t care in the slightest bit, because they’ve got their starting RF for the next nine years.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • prospectslol says:

        I’m not treating 30M as the ceiling at all. If he’s a 2 WAR player he’s not opting out. He’d be league average and would make LESS in arbitration as long as the contract is backloaded like I expect.

        I’m thinking he’s getting at least 18M of the 30M those last 3 years. Let’s say 4M, 6M, 8M.

        Soler would have to be playing at a pretty high level to get significantly more money than that. Bourn got 2.4M, 4.4M, & 6.8M during his arbitration years. Kemp got 4M & 7M his first 2 years of arbitration. His teammate, Andre Ethier, a super two player, made 3.1M, 5.5M, 9.25M & is making 11M in his fourth year of arbitration. Pence received 3.5M, 7M, & 10M his first 3. Pence & Ethier were super 2s, Soler would have to be up in early 2014 to get super 2, I think that’s unrealistic given that he’s barely played for 2 years now.

        McCutchen will be making 4.5M, 7.25M, & 10M during his arbitration years w/his recent extension.

        As long as the contract is backloaded, which is should be considering the circumstances, the earning potential for Soler opting out will be just a few million and that’s only if he’s playing at very high level.

        I think this is all moot anyhow, if he’s as good as the guys I mentioned when he hit his arbitration years, the Cubs are going to want to rip up the contract and sign another long term deal.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jack Weiland says:

        Fair points all around. People seem to be fixating on how hammered the Cubs might get in arbitration, but really even if he opts out and makes tons of money … the Cubs are fine with that. If the “problem” for this deal is that Jorge Soler becomes their everyday right fielder through most of his prime years the Cubs will be quite pleased with themselves.

        Worst case scenario is he flames out in the minors, never makes it to the big leagues, and the 30MM is a sunk cost spread over nine years. Not a huge problem for a team like the Cubs. This is exactly the kind of move they should be making.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Checkmate says:

    This deal was a steal for the Cubs the same way the signing of Kei Igawa was a steal for the Yankees….

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. jdbolick says:

    Only weird thing to me is that OF was already by far the strongest position in the Cubs’ farm system, although it’s pretty safe to assume that some if not most of those top prospects won’t pan out.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Antonio Bananas says:

      Right, but OF aren’t all the same. CF vs Corners really. Solis and Bret Jackson make a pretty good twosome. Plus being a top Cubs prospect prior to their really good draft (IMO) and this signing isn’t saying much. It still really isn’t honestly.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Jake says:

    So, let’s say he does get to the big leagues quicker than 3 years. What happens when he has 6 years of service but is still “under contract”, can he opt out in those years like in his arb years? And what does that mean?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Antonio Bananas says:

    how is it that we are smart enough to adjust everything for park, league, etc but not smart enough to adjust the $/WAR to reflect market? The Yankees, with 200M, are more likely to spend more per WAR, the have more money. The Rays, not so much. So using this league average $5M/1WAR analysis is ridiculous.

    The Cubs are a larger market team and likely are willing to spend more per WAR. Plus the time value of money means that this deal is even cheaper. If he’s even league average at 27, which is at a middle of the road prediction, they are getting lots of surplus value that year and likely in the years before and after.

    You factor all of that into the assumption that the Cubs will be contenders at some point over the next 9 years (contenders are more willing to pay for that next win as opposed to a crappy team) and this is a pretty good deal.

    This is likely a pretty good deal. 3M a year for 9 years? Didn’t use up a draft on him, didn’t trade anyone for him. So what if he spends 3 years in the minors, the Cubs won’t be contenders until then.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. Antonio Bananas says:

    Well awesome. He can opt out if he reaches arb. Guess I should read through all the comments. Kills a lot of my argument. I still think it’s a pretty good deal.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>