Quote:
Originally Posted by jd1020
I dont think there is any shot the Nationals would accept that offer.
The ZiPS projection on Soto's surplus value over the next 2 years is around $90M. That's worth more than Alvarez and Mauricio. Why would they reduce their return just to get rid of Corbin?
|
ZIPS uses an asinine $9 million/win projection that doesn't make any sense in relation to the actual market.
Again, Soto is going to have around $50 million in salaries over the next two years. I'm fine projecting him at about 15 WAR over those two seasons.
NOBODY is paying $10 million/WAR at the top of the scale. Not a single team for a single player. At that top end of the market they're looking at around $6 million/win. That's $90 million in market value vs. $50 million in salary.
He's $40 million in surplus value.
A top 10 prospect is projected to be around 18-20 wins. A top 5 guy is nearer 24 over the first 6 years of the deal and thus around 10 in the first 3 cheap years.
Alvarez alone carries a projected surplus value of somewhere in the $60 million range. If you consider him a 65 FV player, that checks out almost identically to my analysis above.
Or if you insist on sticking to your $9 million zips war and Soto's $90 million in surplus value, then again, Alvarez alone and his 10 pre-arb win are worth that same $90 in terms of pure projection.
On the flip side, Patrick Corbin is owed
$60+ million over the next 2+ seasons. You want to talk about 'surplus value' and then hand-waive the fact that the Nationals are $60 million upside down in a depreciating asset? And act like unloading that contract has no value to them? From a strict asset analysis, it eats up all or most of the surplus value of Soto's deal arb years. Yeah, it's that damn bad.
If Soto doesn't get an extension in place, Alvarez, Mauricio and unloading the Corbin liability is absolutely as good as they'll do, IMO. Who's going to trump it?