Ha Seong Kim

[Laika]

According to this guy Toronto basically had Kim if they were willing to put anti-demotion terms into the contract. I wonder if this will end up as a tough pill for Toronto swallow.

 

 

Jason (Hanshin) Lee

@Jasons_JaysHub

 

Police cars revolving light Final Ha-Seong Kim update.

 

-Kim preferred a move to Toronto while his family preferred a West coast team

-Toronto made numerous offers to Kim, but none included a “no minors” clause

-Kim ended up choosing SD b/c he was guaranteed MLB baseball

 

 

@Jasons_JaysHub

[MBC Sports Plus]

[BTS]

According to this guy Toronto basically had Kim if they were willing to put anti-demotion terms into the contract. I wonder if this will end up as a tough pill for Toronto swallow.

 

 

Jason (Hanshin) Lee

@Jasons_JaysHub

 

Police cars revolving light Final Ha-Seong Kim update.

 

-Kim preferred a move to Toronto while his family preferred a West coast team

-Toronto made numerous offers to Kim, but none included a “no minors” clause

-Kim ended up choosing SD b/c he was guaranteed MLB baseball

 

 

@Jasons_JaysHub

[MBC Sports Plus]

 

I don't understand this level of risk aversion. If you're willing to commit 5/40 or whatever to this guy, I can't see why a guaranteed roster spot is a bridge too far.

[Laika]

I don't understand this level of risk aversion. If you're willing to commit 5/40 or whatever to this guy, I can't see why a guaranteed roster spot is a bridge too far.

 

It's interesting.

 

From a player development perspective it's probably pretty scary to bring in a 25 year old, essentially a AAA type of prospect, and guarantee him a significant sum of money without being able to demote him. What if the player has trouble adjusting and gets in a rut? What if they actually do need to work on something in AAA? Not being able to freely option them for their own benefit actually increases the bust risk, as far as I see it.

 

On the surface it seems like a small thing but I can see why Toronto didn't want to write it into the deal. Maybe it also says something about the player... like, the team is going to guarantee you 30-40M - you really don't want to accept the possibility that you might need to work on something in AAA at some point?

[BTS]

It's interesting.

 

From a player development perspective it's probably pretty scary to bring in a 25 year old, essentially a AAA type of prospect, and guarantee him a significant sum of money without being able to demote him. What if the player has trouble adjusting and gets in a rut? What if they actually do need to work on something in AAA? Not being able to freely option them for their own benefit actually increases the bust risk, as far as I see it.

 

On the surface it seems like a small thing but I can see why Toronto didn't want to write it into the deal. Maybe it also says something about the player... like, the team is going to guarantee you 30-40M - you really don't want to accept the possibility that you might need to work on something in AAA at some point?

 

I wonder if it is more that they saw red flags in the player’s insistence on an MLB guarantee and it made them second guess their potential investment. If Kim is bad enough that he’s an albatross on the MLB roster, you’re probably talking about the investment being a sunk cost anyway.

[Laika]

I wonder if it is more that they saw red flags in the player’s insistence on an MLB guarantee and it made them second guess their potential investment. If Kim is bad enough that he’s an albatross on the MLB roster, you’re probably talking about the investment being a sunk cost anyway.

 

Could be some combo of little things, clues about character, and also the knowledge that there are plenty more fish this offseason. No reason to get tunnel vision on one player and sign a slightly uncomfortable deal

[Jimcanuck]

Too bad it couldn't be written as an incentive, where if Kim falls below a certain threshold after so many PA, Jays have right to option him to AAA for up to X games.

[EZe]

I’m not buying this being the difference. Been deceived too many times before in these situations.

[Jays24]

Who pays a guy 40 million but would like a demotion clause in there. You either think hes ready at that money or you don't...

[The Iceman]

There are GMs that make deals and GMs that talk about making deals.

 

SD GM makes big deals.

He must have been laughing when he heard what held up the deal with Toronto.

Sometimes when signing a FA you need to plug your nose a bit and pull the trigger.

 

WTF, this could turn out to be a horrible miss for this org. It isn't like there a lot of players that have Toronto #1 on their list.

[xposbrad]

Who pays a guy 40 million but would like a demotion clause in there. You either think hes ready at that money or you don't...

 

If you are ready to commit to that kind of money, then just commit to the roster spot. Really bad negotiating by Shatkins if so.

[Ryu In My House]

A little depressing, but what will sting more is when Springer signs with the Mets. Or maybe the Padres now, ffs.

[saskjayfan]

4 years 25 mil for kim....ahhh..

[Pendleton]

4 years 25 mil for kim....ahhh..

 

The Padres also owe a 5M release fee to his KBO club, so they are making a total commitment of 30M

 

"The Padres will owe a release fee on top of the contract that will be paid directly to the Heroes. That fee will equal 20 percent of the contract’s first $25MM, 17.5 percent of the next $25MM and 15 percent of anything spent thereafter."

[glory]

Kim is a risky player and it is unclear whether he can hit big league pitching/velocity, so I guess I could understand wanting to at least have the option of sending him down if he struggled. Gurriel and Hernandez had to be demoted and both became better players after it so there’s some recent success with that approach. Then again if you like a player that much then some times you have to bend a little bit. I guess the Jays didn’t like him enough for that.

[Farm]

25 mill for a 50 FV and we couldn't get it done. A real shame, this would have been a fantastic signing and allowed us to focus on pitching and Springer.

[Grant77]

The lower guarantee makes me feel better about not signing Kim in a way. It signals that most teams peg him as an average starter or good bench player.

 

I had it in my head that several teams thought he had 3-4 WAR potential and the bidding would be around 50 million, but that obviously isn't the case. He took half of that amount to be a super sub in San Diego.

[Jays24]

This can be forgotten pretty easily based on the next set of moves. Hopefully that contract is a sign of what players are being offered out there. We'd have no excuse to grab some good impact players.

[Farm]

This is chump change, we are giving Roark 12M FFS. 2 years 24 million for a 33 year old FA pitcher with limited upside or 30 million for potentially 6-7 years of 50 FV upside.

 

I just can't explain it, it doesn't make sense. We aren't averse to looking like idiots acquiring Chase Anderson for 8 million or Tanner Roark 12 million (who aren't part of the picture long term and are clogging up opportunities for our "upper minors SP depth" but we are risk averse from a 5-6 million a year?)

 

The best explanations I can come up with are either a bias against international markets or a risk aversion towards the poor optics of making a mistake on international signing, but neither make sense to me.

 

I'm really struggling to find an explanation here; if we are willing to offer five years then offer the guaranteed ML spot. I don't feel quite as bad about this as I did about Darvish but it seems to be a similar type of mistake. In any case, the impact here is less than Darvish (Darvish seemed to be a bonafide ace at the time, the projections on Kim are clearly much less clear) but process wise this seems to be worse (blind bidding vs Kim seemingly wanting to come here).

 

Disappointing all around.

 

EDIT: Clearly I'm overreacting a bit in the moment. I'll reserve judgement for the rest of the offseason but at this point in time I do believe this was a mistake.

[Jays24]

This is chump change, we are giving Roark 12M FFS. 2 years 24 million for a 33 year old FA pitcher with limited upside or 30 million for potentially 6-7 years of 50 FV upside.

 

I just can't explain it, it doesn't make sense. We aren't averse to looking like idiots acquiring Chase Anderson for 8 million or Tanner Roark 12 million (who aren't part of the picture long term and are clogging up opportunities for our "upper minors SP depth" but we are risk averse from a 5-6 million a year?)

 

The best explanations I can come up with are either a bias against international markets or a risk aversion towards the poor optics of making a mistake on international signing, but neither make sense to me.

 

I'm really struggling to find an explanation here; if we are willing to offer five years then offer the guaranteed ML spot. I don't feel quite as bad about this as I did about Darvish but it seems to be a similar type of mistake. In any case, the impact here is less than Darvish (Darvish seemed to be a bonafide ace at the time, the projections on Kim are clearly much less clear) but process wise this seems to be worse (blind bidding vs Kim seemingly wanting to come here).

 

Disappointing all around.

 

EDIT: Clearly I'm overreacting a bit in the moment. I'll reserve judgement for the rest of the offseason but at this point in time I do believe this was a mistake.

 

I'd only circle back on this take if we strike out this offseason. We only have room for 1 infielder and I'm sure we'd all be happier with DJL or Lindor (with extension) so let's see how things go.

[Farm]

I'd only circle back on this take if we strike out this offseason. We only have room for 1 infielder and I'm sure we'd all be happier with DJL or Lindor (with extension) so let's see how things go.

 

I agree my take is a bit emotional/in the moment but personally not a big fan of trading for Lindor. In general I don't really believe in trading for players one year ahead of free agency. Of course it depends on the cost but from an asset management perspective it doesn't make sense.

 

I think a Semien/Lemahieu signing could lessen the sting here depending on the contract. But if we are at bargain bin prices then will they pick Toronto over other spots?

[Ray]

I agree my take is a bit emotional/in the moment but personally not a big fan of trading for Lindor. In general I don't really believe in trading for players one year ahead of free agency. Of course it depends on the cost but from an asset management perspective it doesn't make sense.

 

I think a Semien/Lemahieu signing could lessen the sting here depending on the contract. But if we are at bargain bin prices then will they pick Toronto over other spots?

 

Who says we're offering bargain bin prices? We literally went the extra year to sign Ryu when no one else would.

 

There's even less buyers this year than last. There's going to be at least one top guy who has no choice but to take our money if he wants to get paid.

[G-Snarls]

Who says we're offering bargain bin prices? We literally went the extra year to sign Ryu when no one else would.

 

There's even less buyers this year than last. There's going to be at least one top guy who has no choice but to take our money if he wants to get paid.

 

Agree on all.counts

 

Will be really weird if the guy ends up being Realmuto

[saskjayfan]

The lower guarantee makes me feel better about not signing Kim in a way. It signals that most teams peg him as an average starter or good bench player.

 

I had it in my head that several teams thought he had 3-4 WAR potential and the bidding would be around 50 million, but that obviously isn't the case. He took half of that amount to be a super sub in San Diego.

 

seems like an odd place for the player to sign. He's fighting for playing time. If he gets off to a rough start he might find himself on the bench most days.

[Spanky__99]

AJ Preller has had quite the 24 Hrs... Wow!

[Spanky__99]

The dream offseason infield signing is still Justin Turner on like a 2 year deal

 

Yes, I'd be extremely happy with that signing, been saying it all along.

[G-Snarls]

Yes, I'd be extremely happy with that signing, been saying it all along.

 

Turner would be fantastic

 

The Dodgers won't be idle though with SD going HAM

 

Maybe they feel the need to trade for Arenado now and let Turner walk

[Spanky__99]

Kim is a risky player and it is unclear whether he can hit big league pitching/velocity, so I guess I could understand wanting to at least have the option of sending him down if he struggled. Gurriel and Hernandez had to be demoted and both became better players after it so there’s some recent success with that approach. Then again if you like a player that much then some times you have to bend a little bit. I guess the Jays didn’t like him enough for that.

 

This pretty much sums it up, good post.

[saskjayfan]

Turner would be fantastic

 

The Dodgers won't be idle though with SD going HAM

 

Maybe they feel the need to trade for Arenado now and let Turner walk

 

I'd be more concerned they react and sign Bauer and Turner!

[Spanky__99]

I'd be more concerned they react and sign Bauer and Turner!

 

MLBN reporter in LA has mentioned them in on LeMahieu.

[Carlos Danger]

This is chump change, we are giving Roark 12M FFS. 2 years 24 million for a 33 year old FA pitcher with limited upside or 30 million for potentially 6-7 years of 50 FV upside.

 

I just can't explain it, it doesn't make sense. We aren't averse to looking like idiots acquiring Chase Anderson for 8 million or Tanner Roark 12 million (who aren't part of the picture long term and are clogging up opportunities for our "upper minors SP depth" but we are risk averse from a 5-6 million a year?)

 

The best explanations I can come up with are either a bias against international markets or a risk aversion towards the poor optics of making a mistake on international signing, but neither make sense to me.

 

I'm really struggling to find an explanation here; if we are willing to offer five years then offer the guaranteed ML spot. I don't feel quite as bad about this as I did about Darvish but it seems to be a similar type of mistake. In any case, the impact here is less than Darvish (Darvish seemed to be a bonafide ace at the time, the projections on Kim are clearly much less clear) but process wise this seems to be worse (blind bidding vs Kim seemingly wanting to come here).

 

Disappointing all around.

 

EDIT: Clearly I'm overreacting a bit in the moment. I'll reserve judgement for the rest of the offseason but at this point in time I do believe this was a mistake.

 

Family.. If Kim want's to play in TO to be with Ryu, and his family, wife etc want to live, have kids go to school in SD/distance from Korea, large Korean community, family/wife almost always wins. I don't care if you are a pro baseball player or Joe Schmoe.. Wife says she wants to live somewhere and you say I want to hang with a buddy or want to hang in a lake house in the forest, (my case, and I don't live there) and your wife says no... The wife always wins.. So family wanting to be in SD, plus the MLB playing time guaranty.. Not such a mystery..