Soto and the Money

By Paul Semendinger

December 3, 2024

***

Juan Soto is getting criticized in many places for the way he's handling his free agency.

I have to say, I don't get it.

Soto and his agent are talking to teams. They are talking salary. They are negotiating. Shouldn't he be doing that?

I saw a report (but a quick Internet search though produced no results on this) that Soto is also asking teams about their rosters, their farm systems, and (presumably) their commitment to winning.

Is any of that bad?

If a top CEO was available to corporations, and many were interested in that person, wouldn't that CEO want to see what offers are out there, what the businesses looks like, what their long and short term prospects were, and more? In fact, if the CEO didn't look at five-year plans and ten-year plans, and all the data available wouldn't that speak poorly of that person's vision? Isn't Soto (and his agent) doing the same?

Why is any of this seen as negative when it comes to Juan Soto?

I have to ask, wouldn't any of us, in a similar situation do the same? Isn't it simply a smart approach to gather all the offers and all the best information before one makes a long term and huge financial decision?

At the same time that Soto is supposedly asking questions about each team in the bidding process, some of people criticizing Soto for this are also saying, "He only cares about the money. He's going to go to the team that offers one dollar more." I have bad news for those who take that stand - it can't be both. Soto can't be researching which team is the best long term fit for any number of reasons and also only interested in the top dollar.

But, again, what about Soto's approach has been negative? I don't see it. At all.

The Yankees don't own Juan Soto. He is a free agent. He's a free agent the same way that Jason Giambi was a free agent. And C.C. Sabathia. And Reggie Jackson. And a long list of others.

Juan Soto can use any factors he decides to determine whatever team he feels is the best fit. Again, isn't that what he is supposed to do?

And, if he decides that the best decision is financial, that is his decision. And there is nothing wrong with that. At all. Unless one criticizes each and every free agent in baseball who took the highest and/or best offer, which is basically every single one (with very rare exceptions), then they cannot criticize Juan Soto for doing the same.

Gerrit Cole was the highest paid pitcher in history when he signed with the Yankees. Does he get the same criticism as Soto? Were people calling him greedy?

Aaron Judge signed the biggest contract in baseball history when he resigned with the Yankees. Did he get the same criticism as Juan Soto?

Didn't Giancarlo Stanton sign a huge multi-million dollar deal worth $325 million? What's the difference?

It seems like different players get different rules written about them. Entirely. When Juan Soto turned down an offer for hundreds of millions of dollars, some say he was being greedy. When Aaron Judge turned down a $230+ million dollar contract extension, people said that he was brave for putting it on the line and betting on himself. Judge was seen by many as a hero for this. Juan Soto also bet on himself, but not for one year, but for a few as he saw a bigger contract ahead if he played well for many years when he turned down the Nationals' offer. Soto didn't bet on himself for one year, he bet on himself for many years. Isn't that more praiseworthy - to take that much of a risk, to put that much on the line?

Some criticize Soto for turning down the Nationals' offer when they made it years ago. Why, I have to ask, do some believe that Juan Soto owed his allegiance to the Nationals just because they made him a big offer? Didn't he have the right to bet on himself and his future and see if there were other places he wanted to play? Isn't that what the idea of free agency is all about?

Some will say, "Aaron Judge was offered more money to leave the Yankees, but he turned them down." Okay. Judge also got the Yankees to make him Captain. There is a personal, historic, and financial gain to that. Being named captain is not nothing. If the Yankees didn't offer Judge the captancy, would he have stayed? (We will never truly know.) Aaron Judge used his free agency to get the Yankees to pay him well and give him a huge (and very rare) honor. (Again, I see no problem with this. That was Judge's one big chance to capitalize on his career to date and get the best offer he could.) This is what free agency is all about.

Baseball seems to be awash with money. I know many believe that some teams are struggling, but it seems when they need money it's there. The A's new ballpark's initial estimate came in low and the new cost is higher, by a quarter of a billion dollars. The reports are that it is the A's (the A's!) who are paying those costs. I thought the A's weren't making any money!

Each time a team is sold, it goes for huge dollars. The Orioles sold for 1.725 billion dollars. Very smart, very rich business people who have made huge dollars are willing to invest in baseball teams. These investors get to closely look at the books and they seem to determine that the costs are worth it. To me this doesn't sound like a struggling industry. Even the bad teams seem awash in money.

And, all one has to do is watch the games to see the many ads on the uniforms, the new in game commerical boxes that pop up, the ads on the pitchers mound and the helmets (in the post season), and etc...   Look at the walls at most stadiums now. There is barely an inch of wall space. Most inches are sold for ads.

Look at how much money the post season brings in. Just add up how much the tickets alone brought in for the playoffs.  (For the Yankees, if the average price of a ticket was $300 and they have 47,000 seats, they made $14 million a game... as a conservative estimate. And that's just ticket sales!)

If any of us were players and we saw the gazillions being brought in by the owners and MLB, I would assume we'd also say, "Hey, I'm the guy making that money for you - I deserve my fair share."  And of course they do.  Judge deserves it.  Gerrit Cole too.  Yes, and Juan Soto.  All of them.

The owners are smart business people. They don't suddenly become stupid when figuring out player salaries.  They know what a player like Juan Soto is worth. When they offer a contract, it will be based on numbers calculated by teams of very smart people who determine that Soto will be worth the costs. The teams will make offers knowing that they'll still be making money. It makes no sense that they'd do otherwise.

But, even if they did offer too much money to Soto, why would that make him greedy (as some are saying) for taking a huge offer that a baseball owner makes him? Again, why is Soto seen as greedy when Gerrit Cole (and a gazillion others) did the same with their own free agency and were celebrated. (I don't recall anyone criticizing Cole.)

It seems that so many are holding Juan Soto to a different standard then they held for Aaron Judge, Gerrit Cole, and any number of other players. If one is to criticize Juan Soto, don't they (and so many others) deserve the same criticism?

If it's not fair that Soto is looking for the biggest payout he can get, isn't is also unfair that at the start of his career, he was so underpaid? In 2019, when he helped lead the Nations to their World Series Championship, Soto earned just $578,300. Why wasn't their outrage for that? (Some will say, "That's how the system works." Of course. And, with that same logic, this part, where great players get huge dollars is also part of that same system.)

There is also an argument that things were different in the days of Babe Ruth or Joe DiMaggio, but didn't they also ask for the most money they could get while working within a system that bound them to their teams? Babe Ruth famously made more than the President of the United States. As he said, he had a better year than Mr. Hoover...

Joe DiMaggio signed the first $100,000 contract in the game's history. After his second year, he also held out for a bigger contract than Lou Gehrig. The fact that the numbers are different doesn't negate the principle - the players wanted the most money they could get within the system they worked within.

In the 1880s, there were rival leagues. Players would jump to the league that offered the better situations for them. This also happened with that upstart American League at the turn of the century. Didn't the Orioles move to New York (and become the Yankees) to make more money?

This is how it goes. Teams look to make as much money as they can. The players too.

If Juan Soto signs with the Yankees for one million dollars per year, will Hal Steinbrenner give each of the fans the difference in what everyone expected them to pay? ("Big news out of New York, the Yankees are giving their loyal fans part of the $49 million they are saving on Juan Soto's salary each year for the next 15 years...") No. The Yankees would keep whatever savings they make.

In 2024, a player win was worth about $8 million dollars. Juan Soto put up 7.9 WAR. In short, Soto was worth $63.2 million last year. He earned $31 million. Did the Yankees meet with him and give him the extra $30+ million he earned for the team last year? Of course not.

This is Soto's chance to earn the most he can. He's doing what countless other baseball players have done (and will do). I can't see the difference, at all, with Juan Soto. He's a free agent. He's going to make the best deal he can for himself. He's doing what baseball players have done since the beginning of the game's history. Sure, he's going to make huge dollars, but the owner that pays him is also going to cash in as well. Make no mistake.

The criticism of Juan Soto are unfair. A different standard is being held for him than for the many other players, some current Yankees today, who were also in the same situation.

I hope, in the end, Juan Soto looks at the Yankees' offer and determines that for whatever reasons that they are the best fit for him. (I also hope the Yankees make a great offer - one he'd be foolish to pass up.)