Trust the process

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The opt-out is a reality so I’m not sure why you would ignore it.  The reality is if we sign one of these guys they’re getting such a clause and there’s a certain proabability it gets exercised.  I know the Heyward outcome sucks, but the reality is it’s likely a 90% chance or so these guys opt-out the first opportunity they have.  So again, the likely outcome is we’re signing one of these guys to a 3 or 4 year deal with a player options for another 6 or 7 years.  That would work well for us given that Moncada & others will start getting expensive right around that time.  If one of these guys fails to use their opt-out, well then we just got unlucky.  Having said that, we can’t be afraid to take calculated risks and Cubs were still able to win a World Series despite their miss on Heyward.  I do agree an opt-out after two years would be a no-go.  A minumum of three and preferably four would be my requirement.

I'm not ignoring the opt out - I'm saying that it should not factor into how we budget for these guys, because it puts all the risk on the White Sox. We cannot look at a contract for Machado and say "oh it's not going to hurt us holding onto Moncada because Machado is just going to opt out". One of two things will happen in that case - either he doesn't perform well enough and doesn't opt out, or if he does perform well enough then we lose a major contributor when the guy opts out and we have to replace him at the time other guys are becoming expensive. 

I would call thinking of it as a 3 year deal with an option to be an extremely risky line of thought since all the risk is piled onto the White Sox.

Budget for the deal in its entirety. We can afford that deal right now, and it can help put us over the top. Putting us over the top pays for that deal and pays for keeping the other guys later. Thats' the logic.

[southsider2k5]

48 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I would reply that we were pretty adamant about not trying development. Anything that remotely resembled a developmental prospect was traded away. Draft picks were given up. Little to nothing happened internationally. Minor leaguers that went to other teams wound up producing amazement over how little coaching the guys had received.

Well, little happened, I guess I can agree with that.

[Eminor3rd]

32 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The opt-out is a reality so I’m not sure why you would ignore it.  The reality is if we sign one of these guys they’re getting such a clause and there’s a certain proabability it gets exercised.  I know the Heyward outcome sucks, but the reality is it’s likely a 90% chance or so these guys opt-out the first opportunity they have.  So again, the likely outcome is we’re signing one of these guys to a 3 or 4 year deal with a player options for another 6 or 7 years.  That would work well for us given that Moncada & others will start getting expensive right around that time.  If one of these guys fails to use their opt-out, well then we just got unlucky.  Having said that, we can’t be afraid to take calculated risks and Cubs were still able to win a World Series despite their miss on Heyward.  I do agree an opt-out after two years would be a no-go.  A minumum of three and preferably four would be my requirement.

Balta is right here -- the opt-out is NEVER a good thing for team at the time it is signed. There are situations where it could end up being a blessing, in retrospect, if a player declines sharply and unexpectedly, but make no mistake -- it is a leverage point in favor of the player.

The simple way to look at it is this: the player will only opt out if his contract contains significant surplus value at the time of the opt-out. If that occurs, even if the team wants to employ a strategy where they use the best years of the contract and get rid of the player for the decline, the team would be better off trading the contract than having the player depart for nothing. The player only opts IN if the contract is underwater or a wash. If the player opts OUT, the team loses a valuable asset.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[chitownsportsfan]

Eminor did a great job explaining it but just to add -- an option ALWAYS benefits whoever holds it.  Now, how much $$$ that option is worth is up for the agent, club, and player to decide.

If Machado is insisting on an opt-out option then the Sox should be insisting on a much lower AAV.

In general I am with Balta and Eminor: I'm loathe to give an opt out.  It leaves the club holding all the downside risk and none of the upside risk.  Now, if that's what it takes to get him signed then maybe we have to hold our nose and give one.  We'll see.

[Balta1701]

Just now, chitownsportsfan said:

Eminor did a great job explaining it but just to add -- an option ALWAYS benefits whoever holds it.  Now, how much $$$ that option is worth is up for the agent, club, and player to decide.

If Machado is insisting on an opt-out option then the Sox should be insisting on a much lower AAV.

In general I am with Balta and Eminor: I'm loathe to give an opt out.  It leaves the club holding all the downside risk and none of the upside risk.  Now, if that's what it takes to get him signed then maybe we have to hold our nose and give one.  We'll see.

I'm ok with giving an opt out, I think the player will expect it, that's just the league we're in and that's what you have to do to write a competitive contract these days. I draw the line at the opt-out being less than 3 years, and I make sure that I can afford the full contract when I sign it.

[Dick Allen]

30 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Balta is right here -- the opt-out is NEVER a good thing for team at the time it is signed. There are situations where it could end up being a blessing, in retrospect, if a player declines sharply and unexpectedly, but make no mistake -- it is a leverage point in favor of the player.

The simple way to look at it is this: the player will only opt out if his contract contains significant surplus value at the time of the opt-out. If that occurs, even if the team wants to employ a strategy where they use the best years of the contract and get rid of the player for the decline, the team would be better off trading the contract than having the player depart for nothing. The player only opts IN if the contract is underwater or a wash. If the player opts OUT, the team loses a valuable asset.

 

So while yes, an opt out is great for the player, it doesn't hurt the team too much if you think about it. For them to opt out, they will have had to play well, and then, if you let them walk, you aren't paying for what could and should be declining years and can re-allocate the funds.  Trading  expensive guys doesn't yield the greatest returns anymore.  It worked out well for the White Sox and Albert Belle. It would have worked out fine for the Yankees with ARod had they let him walk.  I think with most guys that opt out, the team that lets him walk wind up really happy about it.

 

The fact is now, if you are serious about signing one of these guys, you are going to have to give him one., especially these guys who are going to sign for more than 5 years. If you don't want to, stick with signing Adam LaRoche.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Timely

 

[Thad Bosley]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

I'm totally ok with this. My priority is winning a world series in 2019-2021. Do that and those deals are balanced out by the surge in season ticket sales - we already saw that with this franchise. And conveniently, they're young enough that committing to them for a decade shouldn't scare us off. You mentioned Pujols a few posts ago - if I could have gotten Pujols for a 10 year deal starting when he was 26, over that stretch Pujols produced an average .946 OPS.

Not a longer window than that?  We'll have Moncada, Giolito, Lopez, Hansen, Robert, Cease, et al together starting from 2019 and going through at least 2023, and probably beyond a few years after that.  If this rebuild is for real, I'm expecting quite a bit of championship competitiveness right through the mid '20s.   

[Balta1701]

Just now, Fan O'Faust said:

Not a longer window than that?  We'll have Moncada, Giolito, Lopez, Hansen, Robert, Cease, et al together starting from 2019 and going through at least 2023, and probably beyond a few years after that.  If this rebuild is for real, I'm expecting quite a bit of championship competitiveness right through the mid '20s.   

I did not say that we did not have a longer window than that. We may very well be able to win another one after that stretch. However, my priority is those 3 years because those 3 years are the years when the roster is young and cheap. In 2021, Moncada, Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer are all going to be Arb-eligible, and Moncada is going to break Seager's record for largest 1st-year arb settlement. In 2022, Kopech and Jimenez are going to break Moncada's record for largest 1st-year arb deals if they haven't extended before that. 

Basically, 2019 and 2020 are the years we will be able to play the free agent market. If we have not won a series by 2021, it will be difficult to add anything major through free agency, and Rodon will be hitting free agency after 2021. Things get tougher from there.

Win one in that 3 year period and everything suddenly becomes possible. Miss and everything becomes difficult.

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

Balta is right here -- the opt-out is NEVER a good thing for team at the time it is signed. There are situations where it could end up being a blessing, in retrospect, if a player declines sharply and unexpectedly, but make no mistake -- it is a leverage point in favor of the player.

The simple way to look at it is this: the player will only opt out if his contract contains significant surplus value at the time of the opt-out. If that occurs, even if the team wants to employ a strategy where they use the best years of the contract and get rid of the player for the decline, the team would be better off trading the contract than having the player depart for nothing. The player only opts IN if the contract is underwater or a wash. If the player opts OUT, the team loses a valuable asset.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’ll happily pay Machado $140M over four years and be ok with losing a valuable asset at that point in time.  If he’s a 6+ WAR player he’s probably providing $80M+ in surplus value over that period of time.  He will probably only provide half or less of that value over the remaining years of the contract.  Sucks that we have to replace him then, but at least we got to enjoy all that surplus value during a big chunk of our competive window.  If he sucks, the opt-out doesn’t really matter because we’d have been on the hook anyways.  Again, I’m not actually arguing that an opt-out is good for a team from a theoretical standpoint, but rather it can work out really well if the probabilities play out as they should.

[pcq]

I don't think we should trust anything. Rebuild talk is kind of boorish when there is a game going on. We have seen some positives though. I resent players acting like they are half awake. 

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

I'm not ignoring the opt out - I'm saying that it should not factor into how we budget for these guys, because it puts all the risk on the White Sox. We cannot look at a contract for Machado and say "oh it's not going to hurt us holding onto Moncada because Machado is just going to opt out". One of two things will happen in that case - either he doesn't perform well enough and doesn't opt out, or if he does perform well enough then we lose a major contributor when the guy opts out and we have to replace him at the time other guys are becoming expensive. 

I would call thinking of it as a 3 year deal with an option to be an extremely risky line of thought since all the risk is piled onto the White Sox.

Budget for the deal in its entirety. We can afford that deal right now, and it can help put us over the top. Putting us over the top pays for that deal and pays for keeping the other guys later. Thats' the logic.

If this is somehow a budgeting debate, I’d argue you should budget based on the most likely outcome (i.e. the opt-out is exercised) and have a fall back plan in case it’s not.  There’s nothing wrong with having two possible paths depending on what decision is made.  Obviously you can’t ignore those post opt-out years, but you don’t typically budget from a worst case perspective.  The Cubs most certaintly thought Heyward would be opting out as some of their core guys started getting expensive and I’m sure their plan has now changed.  Our goal, just like it was for the Cubs, is to maximize a short window that has a higher degree of certainty (since core guys are cost controlled) and adding a guy like Machado does that regardless of opting out or not.

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Eminor did a great job explaining it but just to add -- an option ALWAYS benefits whoever holds it.  Now, how much $$$ that option is worth is up for the agent, club, and player to decide.

If Machado is insisting on an opt-out option then the Sox should be insisting on a much lower AAV.

In general I am with Balta and Eminor: I'm loathe to give an opt out.  It leaves the club holding all the downside risk and none of the upside risk.  Now, if that's what it takes to get him signed then maybe we have to hold our nose and give one.  We'll see.

The problem you guys aren’t acknowledging is how much upside risk is there really for us with a 10 year contract at record breaking AAVs.  You’re ultimately paying for the surplus value in those early years.  That’s when the majority of value occurs.  It all depends on when the opt-out takes place in the contract.  If I can get four guaranteed years, I’m ok with losing a little upside in years 5-7 if I can avoid the likely downside in years 8-10.  If it’s only two guaranteed years it's a completely different story.

[GreenSox]

Maybe they can sign one of these superstars...that's one hole covered.  But they'll still have to make a bunch of moves with the young players and prospects - packaging some up for a different young player, e.g. (like the Eaton and Davidson trades).    I would think we'd see some movement in that regard between now and December.
If they don't they'll end up with a nice team, but with a Noesi as one of the starting 5, etc.

[Balta1701]

20 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Maybe they can sign one of these superstars...that's one hole covered.  But they'll still have to make a bunch of moves with the young players and prospects - packaging some up for a different young player, e.g. (like the Eaton and Davidson trades).    I would think we'd see some movement in that regard between now and December.
If they don't they'll end up with a nice team, but with a Noesi as one of the starting 5, etc.

I will be open to packaging guys for a superstar, but not this offseason when there is so much talent available on the Free Agent market. 

In 2020, we might have a pitching staff already loaded enough that Cease becomes expendable or something like that.

[GreenSox]

28 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I will be open to packaging guys for a superstar, but not this offseason when there is so much talent available on the Free Agent market. 

In 2020, we might have a pitching staff already loaded enough that Cease becomes expendable or something like that.

I'm not necessarily looking to trade for a superstar or, say, a 5 year veteran..in fact, that's what I don't want.
I am looking to trade, say, a corner OF prospect (a position at which Sox seem to have a some cushion) for a CF prospect or young player.  The Sox are good at those type of moves...they just don't do them very often.
And, always, for pitching, if the opportunity arises.

Edited May 3, 2018 by GreenSox

[Balta1701]

53 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

I'm not necessarily looking to trade for a superstar or, say, a 5 year veteran..in fact, that's what I don't want.
I am looking to trade, say, a corner OF prospect (a position at which Sox seem to have a some cushion) for a CF prospect or young player.  The Sox are good at those type of moves...they just don't do them very often.
And, always, for pitching, if the opportunity arises.

I see no reason why we should be trading for a CF prospect when Robert is in our system. If you want someone on a short term deal for 2019 and 2020 because you're convinced Robert won't be here until 2021 and, like me, you want a trophy before that, I'm ok with that move, but I'm not paying a premium for a long-term controlled CF when I have already paid a premium for a long term controlled CF.

[pcq]

Adopting two high profile players from free agency could be very disruptive to a modest budget operation like Chicago. It could have all kinds of repurcussions. 

[greg775]

Moustakas makes too much sense. He's cheap and we need that lefty power bat in the Cell. 40 million for four years. Just do it.

[caulfield12]

As much as we'd like to dump Engel/Thompson (right now, game-winning HR notwithstanding)...when you have Robert and Basabe behind them, that makes little to no sense (other than getting a veteran place-holder for one or two years that can play well above MLB-average defense in order to protect the young pitching staff).

[Eminor3rd]

19 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

 

So while yes, an opt out is great for the player, it doesn't hurt the team too much if you think about it. For them to opt out, they will have had to play well, and then, if you let them walk, you aren't paying for what could and should be declining years and can re-allocate the funds.  Trading  expensive guys doesn't yield the greatest returns anymore.  It worked out well for the White Sox and Albert Belle. It would have worked out fine for the Yankees with ARod had they let him walk.  I think with most guys that opt out, the team that lets him walk wind up really happy about it.

 

The fact is now, if you are serious about signing one of these guys, you are going to have to give him one., especially these guys who are going to sign for more than 5 years. If you don't want to, stick with signing Adam LaRoche.

 

 

17 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’ll happily pay Machado $140M over four years and be ok with losing a valuable asset at that point in time.  If he’s a 6+ WAR player he’s probably providing $80M+ in surplus value over that period of time.  He will probably only provide half or less of that value over the remaining years of the contract.  Sucks that we have to replace him then, but at least we got to enjoy all that surplus value during a big chunk of our competive window.  If he sucks, the opt-out doesn’t really matter because we’d have been on the hook anyways.  Again, I’m not actually arguing that an opt-out is good for a team from a theoretical standpoint, but rather it can work out really well if the probabilities play out as they should.

A deal can still end up an overall net positive if the player opts out (as in "this team has been better off signing this player than not having signed the player"), yes, but the same deal would be better if the opt out wasn't there. Even in the example of Belle: yes, it worked out better for the Sox in retrospect, because Belle declined suddenly and unexpectedly, but Reinsdorf and many others were extremely upset at the time that it happened, because Belle was worth more than the remainder of his contract -- which is why it made sense for him to opt out and find a better deal. If the opt-out wasn't there, the Sox could have also avoided a declining Belle by trading him at that time, and the return would have been a net positive that reflected the surplus value of the deal.

This isn't to say that an opt-out should never be accepted in a deal, it's just that it is a player advantage and should come with a cost during negotiations.

16 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The problem you guys aren’t acknowledging is how much upside risk is there really for us with a 10 year contract at record breaking AAVs.  You’re ultimately paying for the surplus value in those early years.  That’s when the majority of value occurs.  It all depends on when the opt-out takes place in the contract.  If I can get four guaranteed years, I’m ok with losing a little upside in years 5-7 if I can avoid the likely downside in years 8-10.  If it’s only two guaranteed years it's a completely different story.

All of that "paying for the surplus value in early years" still applies to a deal with an opt out. The team is still on the hook for that money, should the player age as expected or worse than expected. All of the "upside" is lost, because if the player ages better than expected, and thus the team is in line to get more of that surplus value than what they paid for, the deal gets torn up. Essentially all of the risk normally associated with a long-term, big money deal is still on the team, but without the potential for reward.

It's the fact that the decision is in the hands of the player, not the team, that makes the difference. If, at the time of the opt out, the balance of money/value for the remainder of the deal is off in either direction, the team is guaranteed to get the worse end of it.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Lillian]

For the skeptics and cynics, maybe it would be helpful to watch the run differential, more than the won/loss record. When the Sox are able to be in most games, the hope that a few of the young prospects and a free agent signing, or two, will make this team competitive. There shouldn't be a lot of holes to fill, once we get the likes of Jimenez, Robert, Kopech, Cease, Dunning, Hansen and more.

[greg775]

16 hours ago, pcq said:

Adopting two high profile players from free agency could be very disruptive to a modest budget operation like Chicago. It could have all kinds of repurcussions. 

I thought the White Sox were making money, tons of money. Another aspect of the modern era of baseball is fans hate seeing their teams spend money. This is a strange new world. Fans love losing. Fans don't want the owners to spend any cash.

Edited May 4, 2018 by greg775

[ron883]

17 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I thought the White Sox were making money, tons of money. Another aspect of the modern era of baseball is fans hate seeing their teams spend money. This is a strange new world. Fans love losing. Fans don't want the owners to spend any cash.

I want prospects and a low payroll. Get these veterans like Abreu and Davidson the hell out of here. Need more prospects. 

[Eminor3rd]

22 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I thought the White Sox were making money, tons of money. Another aspect of the modern era of baseball is fans hate seeing their teams spend money. This is a strange new world. Fans love losing. Fans don't want the owners to spend any cash.

No one wants this, no matter how many times you say it.