Jump to content
Kyyle23

Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

Recommended Posts

If Harper is given a 3 year opt out, it ties the Sox hands, in the event that some other potential acquisition might surface. It's one thing to offer a short term, 3 year contract, but quite another to be on the hook for $330 million +, but not have any certainty as to when the player might leave. Such a deal does not make sense for the Sox. He would be a critical component of that window of contention and if he were to depart, they would then have to scramble to find his replacement, which would not be as easy as some have suggested. How many middle of the order, left handed bats, with a career OBP of .388 are there, in any off season? 

All of the amounts of money and conditions which go into making these contracts, are arbitrary, so there really aren't a lot of rules. However, it just seems a little unfair and not very equitable, for the player to demand that the team commit to 10 years, while he is only willing to commit to 2, or 3.

Edited by Lillian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lillian said:

If Harper is given a 3 year opt out, it ties the Sox hands, in the event that some other potential acquisition might surface. It's one thing to offer a short term, 3 year contract, but quite another to be on the hook for $330 million +, but not have any certainty as to when the player might leave. Such a deal does not make sense for the Sox. He would be a critical component of that window of contention and if he were to depart, they would then have to scramble to find his replacement, which would not be as easy as some have suggested. How many middle of the order, left handed bats, with a career OBP of .388 are there, in any off season? 

All of the amounts of money and conditions which go into making these contracts, are arbitrary, so there really aren't a lot of rules. However, it just seems a little unfair and not very equitable, for the player to demand that the team commit to 10 years, while he is only willing to commit to 2, or 3.

Why? If you sign him long term, the money is tied up. If he opts out after 3, you have money to go get someone else if he leaves. What's the downsidel other than showing your fan base and other teams you mean business? Not signing him means you have to get someone else anyways. 

 

There are going to be a lot of players you think are going to be White Sox for a decade, that 3 years from now will be long gone.

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lillian said:

If Harper is given a 3 year opt out, it ties the Sox hands, in the event that some other potential acquisition might surface. It's one thing to offer a short term, 3 year contract, but quite another to be on the hook for $330 million +, but not have any certainty as to when the player might leave. Such a deal does not make sense for the Sox. He would be a critical component of that window of contention and if he were to depart, they would then have to scramble to find his replacement, which would not be as easy as some have suggested. How many middle of the order, left handed bats, with a career OBP of .388 are there, in any off season? 

All of the amounts of money and conditions which go into making these contracts, are arbitrary, so there really aren't a lot of rules. However, it just seems a little unfair and not very equitable, for the player to demand that the team commit to 10 years, while he is only willing to commit to 2, or 3.

And that’s why there is a real possibility he goes to a win-now team like the Dodgers...that he actually desires to play for, as opposed to the Phillies, that are all-in but are not the preferred destination.

The White Sox really didn't give Machado much of an option.  Undoubtedly, that’s not the case here...or they’re just really stuck on whether to give Philly four years instead of just 3, and how much more that should be worth to secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lillian said:

If Harper is given a 3 year opt out, it ties the Sox hands, in the event that some other potential acquisition might surface. It's one thing to offer a short term, 3 year contract, but quite another to be on the hook for $330 million +, but not have any certainty as to when the player might leave. Such a deal does not make sense for the Sox. He would be a critical component of that window of contention and if he were to depart, they would then have to scramble to find his replacement, which would not be as easy as some have suggested. How many middle of the order, left handed bats, with a career OBP of .388 are there, in any off season? 

All of the amounts of money and conditions which go into making these contracts, are arbitrary, so there really aren't a lot of rules. However, it just seems a little unfair and not very equitable, for the player to demand that the team commit to 10 years, while he is only willing to commit to 2, or 3.

What you say makes sense in theory, but the reality is that these are the risks a team has to take if they want a top free agent.  There's only a handful of tippy top FA's and if you want one of them, the truth is THEY have the leverage and opt-outs are part of the game these days.  Heck, most people were stunned that Machado's opt-out wasn't until year 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White Sox are in no position to worry about 3 years down the road and the impact the opt out will have.

Hopefully Harper can attract other talent here over this time.

In three years if he opts out, they can try and extend him early like the Yankees did with A-Rd or pick up a high draft pick.

Harper will be fully engaged to excel over those 3 years as opposed to a mailing it in Manny.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RTC said:

What you say makes sense in theory, but the reality is that these are the risks a team has to take if they want a top free agent.  There's only a handful of tippy top FA's and if you want one of them, the truth is THEY have the leverage and opt-outs are part of the game these days.  Heck, most people were stunned that Machado's opt-out wasn't until year 5.

But another part of it has to be how useful he will be in the pre-opt out years. If we were in the middle of our window of contention then you are willing to take those risks, but when maybe 2 years and likely really only 1 year are going to be when we are competing, the FO (and JR) might not see it as worth that risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GenericUserName said:

But another part of it has to be how useful he will be in the pre-opt out years. If we were in the middle of our window of contention then you are willing to take those risks, but when maybe 2 years and likely really only 1 year are going to be when we are competing, the FO (and JR) might not see it as worth that risk.

If the Sox are bad enough that Harper wants to leave in 3 years then it doesn't matter if he opts out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, almagest said:

If the Sox are bad enough that Harper wants to leave in 3 years then it doesn't matter if he opts out.

And if he was productive enough that he wants to leave also good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

But another part of it has to be how useful he will be in the pre-opt out years. If we were in the middle of our window of contention then you are willing to take those risks, but when maybe 2 years and likely really only 1 year are going to be when we are competing, the FO (and JR) might not see it as worth that risk.

If you are freaking out about risk over years 1,2 or 3, you don't want to sign him for 10 anyways.

This, even if he left after 3 years, gives the team instant credibility. Moves up the timeline, takes pressure off your prospects, and sells tickets. To worry that 3 years from now he may say good bye is like a College Basketball Coach not signing a great prospect because he might not be around for 4 years.

And if he leaves in 3 years, you're in the same boat as if you didn't sign him anyway. Hahn said he would spend the money.

 

With the Phillies, I could see the problem. It probably takes them out of any Trout discussion. The Sox have zero shot at Trout. 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

If you are freaking out about risk over years 1,2 or 3, you don't want to sign him for 10 anyways.

This, even if he left after 3 years, gives the team instant credibility. Moves up the timeline, takes pressure off your prospects, and sells tickets. To worry that 3 years from now he may say good bye is like a College Basketball Coach not signing a great prospect because he might not be around for 4 years.

And if he leaves in 3 years, you're in the same boat as if you didn't sign him anyway. Hahn said he would spend the money.

Couldn't agree more with this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s pretty clear to me that any opt-out should be after year 4.  Heyward & Arenado both got them after year 3, but those were 8 year deals.  If Harper wants a 10 year deal, he has to committ 4 years to an organization or the deal is way too player friendly.

If I’m the White Sox, I’m offering 10/$330M with an opt-out after year 4. That way his camp can claim the largest contract ever and the largest AAV for a positional player.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

If you are freaking out about risk over years 1,2 or 3, you don't want to sign him for 10 anyways.

This, even if he left after 3 years, gives the team instant credibility. Moves up the timeline, takes pressure off your prospects, and sells tickets. To worry that 3 years from now he may say good bye is like a College Basketball Coach not signing a great prospect because he might not be around for 4 years.

And if he leaves in 3 years, you're in the same boat as if you didn't sign him anyway. Hahn said he would spend the money.

But we can just anticipate the front office response from the Sox if he eventually sign with anyone but the Phillies for three years (opt out kicking in at that moment)...”our timelines in light of the Kopech injury and dearth of comparable pitching (other than Keuchel/Kimbrel) didn’t allow for a set of tandem moves that would allow us to legitimately compete until 2021...”

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, steveno89 said:

If news breaks that a miracle happened and the Sox signed Bryce Harper I highly doubt any of us would give a crap about an opt out after three years

100%. It also shows other free agents in the coming years that we intend to be serious. This will help is attract a pitcher when it's time to contend, get our version of when the Cubs signed Lester right before their run. We'll likely need a competitive and proven vet pitcher to cap off our rotation and this signing would help move the needle in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The risk to the Sox if Harper were to leave in 3 years is that between 2019-2021, the Sox trade their OF prospects like Adolfo and Rutherford and one of them ends up becoming a very good MLB outfielder, or that they end up not signing some other free agent outfielder like Nick Castellanos who ends up becoming a great long term solution for another team.  IMO the risk of those things happening is low.  The more likely scenario is that 3 years from now they will be in the same situation they are in today, looking for a good long term solution in right field.  Or maybe even in a worse situation if they end up giving a bad contract to someone like Yasiel Puig.  So might as well have Harper for the next 3 years and let the chips fall where they may when the opt out comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Perfect Vision said:

The risk to the Sox if Harper were to leave in 3 years is that between 2019-2021, the Sox trade their OF prospects like Adolfo and Rutherford and one of them ends up becoming a very good MLB outfielder, or that they end up not signing some other free agent outfielder like Nick Castellanos who ends up becoming a great long term solution for another team.  IMO the risk of those things happening is low.  The more likely scenario is that 3 years from now they will be in the same situation they are in today, looking for a good long term solution in right field.  Or maybe even in a worse situation if they end up giving a bad contract to someone like Yasiel Puig.  So might as well have Harper for the next 3 years and let the chips fall where they may when the opt out comes up.

Also if they trade any OF prospects the idea is that you get something of value in return, probably pitching given the injuries we've seen lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Perfect Vision said:

The risk to the Sox if Harper were to leave in 3 years is that between 2019-2021, the Sox trade their OF prospects like Adolfo and Rutherford and one of them ends up becoming a very good MLB outfielder, or that they end up not signing some other free agent outfielder like Nick Castellanos who ends up becoming a great long term solution for another team.  IMO the risk of those things happening is low.  The more likely scenario is that 3 years from now they will be in the same situation they are in today, looking for a good long term solution in right field.  Or maybe even in a worse situation if they end up giving a bad contract to someone like Yasiel Puig.  So might as well have Harper for the next 3 years and let the chips fall where they may when the opt out comes up.

A “fair” but not cheap deal for Puig at 29 would be 3 years and $54 million or four years and $70...about what Pollock got, albeit less injuries and younger.  Puig has averaged 1.9 fWAR the last three seasons.  I can’t imagine paying Castellanos or Ozuna much more or less that that.  And therein lies the problem...between our second tier of outfielders being unsure to even hit 2 and the opportunity cost that goes with not spending on a really good veteran starting pitcher.  Of course, they SHOULD be able to accommodate two contracts like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fathom said:

At this point a 2 week opt-out would be fine with me. This organization needs some good news.

Give him a "swell-opt" opportunity after every game.

"Dude, I'm gonna need more money to play with these clowns tomorrow."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

It’s pretty clear to me that any opt-out should be after year 4.  Heyward & Arenado both got them after year 3, but those were 8 year deals.  If Harper wants a 10 year deal, he has to committ 4 years to an organization or the deal is way too player friendly.

If I’m the White Sox, I’m offering 10/$330M with an opt-out after year 4. That way his camp can claim the largest contract ever and the largest AAV for a positional player.

 

I would start with the same 4 year opt-out offer since Machado only got the much more team friendly 5 but if it took a 3 year opt-out to sign Harper over losing him to another team, I would give it to him.

Dick Allen and I have already stated the obvious — 3 years of Harper is better than zero, and very likely better than the collection of mediocrity that Hahn would spend the money on in those 3 years.  We have already seen what Hahn spent $45 million on this offseason after stating he wouldn’t throw money at stop-gaps.

Edited by Harper2Sox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it's possible that Hahn and perhaps JR are suffering from the same thing a lot of us fans do -- falling too much in love with our own prospects.  I'm sure Hahn has dreamt of a future where all these prospects that he's acquired become great major leaguers.  To acquire Harper means, in all likelihood, to eventually trade most of the group of Rutherford, Adolfo, Basabe, and Gonzalez.  I hope that's not a factor in whether to go after Harper or not, but I'm afraid it might be (especially with all his talk of watching the prospects "bloom" and whatnot).  He didn't have to deal with that in pursuing Machado, since the system doesn't have any legit 3B prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Perfect Vision said:

I also think it's possible that Hahn and perhaps JR are suffering from the same thing a lot of us fans do -- falling too much in love with our own prospects.  I'm sure Hahn has dreamt of a future where all these prospects that he's acquired become great major leaguers.  To acquire Harper means, in all likelihood, to eventually trade most of the group of Rutherford, Adolfo, Basabe, and Gonzalez.  I hope that's not a factor in whether to go after Harper or not, but I'm afraid it might be (especially with all his talk of watching the prospects "bloom" and whatnot).  He didn't have to deal with that in pursuing Machado, since the system doesn't have any legit 3B prospects.

At the very least, the presence of so many options in the OF contrasted with so few options in the IF should have made Machado more valuable to this team than Harper...but alas that's out the window. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

At the very least, the presence of so many options in the OF contrasted with so few options in the IF should have made Machado more valuable to this team than Harper...but alas that's out the window. 

Agreed.  But Harper will still likely be more valuable than all of the OF prospects not named Eloy and Robert.  They can be used in trades too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harper2Sox said:

Agreed.  But Harper will still likely be more valuable than all of the OF prospects not named Eloy and Robert.  They can be used in trades too.

A 3 year opt out only makes trading any of those guys awfully risky when they're probably 2 years away from big league debuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

At the very least, the presence of so many options in the OF contrasted with so few options in the IF should have made Machado more valuable to this team than Harper...but alas that's out the window. 

That's why Kenny and Rick were so shellshocked...but with the outfield depth they have only 1 or 2 of those guys ever was making the club anyways with Eloy and Robert being locks. I honestly would rather have Harper and the media exposure anyways. Have you heard anything out of Manny coverage since ST started? I don't even know if he's played a game yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×