I am all aboard the Soto train, and am realistic about the price. But this is off a bit IMO. The value of prospects doesn't lie in the chance that they will be HOFers. It's that they will, hopefully, be productive, above average players for a very cheap salary, allowing you to offset the part of your roster who are no longer in the cost-control portion of their career. So while Marcelo Mayer is highly, highly unlikely to be as good as Juan Soto, he doesn't have to be in order to be just as valuable, for the start of his career. anyway.
Put another way, if you had a guy whom you could somehow guarantee would have the exact same first 6 years as Devers or Bogaerts, would you trade that guy for Soto?
I get it, and its definitely a fair point. The other side of that coin is that, even if you empty the farm system, with good resources (like the Sox have) you'll end up with top prospects again. Generational talent, though? That's hard to come by.
We don't need to look much further than the Sox themselves to see that trend bear out. In 2016, only 6 years ago, the sox had one of the best farm systems in the league. Four top 20 prospects (Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, Espinoza) and Kopech in the top 100. After using prospects how you would, one year later, they're down to 3 top prospects (Benintendi, Devers, Groome). in 2018, two years after being a top farm system, they traded away and promoted all their talent. They were left with only 2 players in the top 100, Groome at 83 and Chavis at 85. One year later? ZERO in the top 100.
In a three year period, they want from a top 5 system in the league to one of the worst. In the three years since? They went from one of the worst farm systems in the league to a top 10 farm system.
So, yes, while the goal is to acquire top talent in the farm system for cheaper cost controlled players, its not like the faucet is shut off when you trade them away. It's always dripping.
As to your other question - 6 cost controlled years of Devers or Boogey for Soto? YMMV, but I take Soto 10 times out of 10. We can't take current Devers and extrapolate him for those 6 years. For 3 of his first 6 seasons, he had a WAR less than 1 (would have been 1.5 in covid season). So, while he definitely saved payroll for the team, half of his 6 seasons spent here were no better production than a league average 3rd baseman. That leaves THREE seasons of Devers - who's a FANTASTIC player - vs a generational hitter. A hitter who, despite how awesome Devers is, will produce 300% more OFF in his career than Devers.
And in only about 60 more games, they'll be making fairly similar AAV.
Locking up Soto longterm over Devers first 6 seasons. 10 times out of 10.
A lot of that is just due to timing. Mookie Betts was once a top 5 prospect in baseball. He just lost prospect status before he could be ranked on any end of season list. By the time he reached Boston he was all the rage. What happens when you add Mookie Betts to all your math? Luckily for you, he did miss the cut off so you can use this argument even though it's dishonest.
Also, once you get into the top 10 and to a lesser degree, the top 20, they get pretty close to sure things. Especially the hitters. Lars and Blake failed. Rusney should never have been rated on a prospect list. Who knows what would have been with RWM but that's a one off thing. I guess it depends on what your definition of a sure thing is though. I'm not counting Rusney so 6/9 succeeded. One of the 3 who failed did so due to non baseball reasons. Add Betts into the conversation and you are at 7/10.
If you want to argue we should trade away the farm, that's one thing. But even your list suggest top 20 prospects are more of a sure thing than not. Top 10 especially.
Absolutely fair. I guess my point shouldn't have been about the ability for prospects to succeed, but that, regardless of their success rate, even top 10 prospects don't come close to sniffing the type of player Soto has turned into. I think people are underestimating the gap between great players - Mookie, Devers - and generational players.
Lets use your example, Mookie.
His last 3 seasons in LA have been very consistent across the board, but boiling it down - essentially a 3 WAR player with a 20 OFF. Both very solid numbers.
But nowhere close to 2018 Mookie. The man was a killer at the plate. 185 wRC+. A .449 wOBA. The people talking about "losing a generational talent" are talking about 2016 - 2019 Mookie when he averaged a
141 wRC+ and a .386 wOBA.
In Soto's last 4 seasons, he's averaged a
165 wRC+ and a .420 wOBA. Soto's 4 year run isn't just better than Mookies 4 year run here, its
20% better. Mookies 4 blistering years started when he was 23. Soto just turned 23.
So, if you're going to have to pay both Soto and Mookie $35-38M a season, isn't it a no-brainer? And I know that's shifting the goal posts a bit, and I apologize. You're right. The point shouldn't have been that top prospects always flame out. Its that even when they succeed and are really, really good, they're never Juan Soto.
(Note - calling my argument "dishonest" and then saying, "Rusney should never have been rated on a prospect list, so I'm not counting him" is something else, man).
I think the problem is you projected Devers at 25m. Rendon's AAV is 35m.
Thats true, but Rendons contract is jacked to $35M a season because it's only a 7 year contract. He was 30 when he signed it. The Angels opted for higher AAV to get away from offering him $25M a season in his late 30's and early 40's. That contracts an outlier.
Of the largest 100 contracts, the only guys at 26 or 27 years old (Devers age bracket) that signed 10+ year contracts (standard length) over $25M a season are:
Manny Machado
Mike Trout
Mookie Betts
Francisco Lindor
Corey Seager
In that group, you're talking about generational talent (Trout/Betts), High end SS's (Lindor/Seager), and a unicorn (Machado). While I think the 8 year/$20M a year the Sox offered to start the season is low, I think they could offer $25M a year for 10 years, knowing that the final few years would be at DH/1B. If they only wanted him for 8 years, then, yeah, probably talking about $28-30M+
