Jump to content
yesterday333

Machado signs with Padres 10/300

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, IowaPG said:

I should add that KW is not involved in negotiations at this point. 

Does JR even watch baseball? Because trying to compare him to a 31 year old Pujols is absolutely ludicrous.

Share this post


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

I think a good solution in terms of paying younger players is that they only get one year at league minimum, and go to arbitration immediately from years 2-6. 

That is an option too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You can tell who has the bias of Reinsdorf=Scrooge McDuck by that. I don't want to believe it, but the best predictor of future results is past behavior, so I can't really fault them for that bias. 

What past behavior? When as the last time the Sox were in a rebuild with low payroll commitments with 2 26 yr old superstars on the market with not too many suitors ? There is no past behavior to this specific situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

That may have happened, but the difference is just how much better GSW is and Miami was than their competition, outside of 2011.  The dominant teams were actually in danger of losing at times then. The Lakers in the early 2000s had to make a miracle shot in 0.4 secs and overcome a 20pt 4th quarter deficit in a game 7 just to GET to the Finals. The Bulls were in danger of losing at times during  their run as well. The only time GSW was ever in danger was that LeBron miracle game 7, and that OKC game 7. but even with Durant's last game in OKC, I wouldn't say it was anything like 20 points bad. They were down like 12 points with 7 mins to play and that is by no means considered a miracle comeback. 

If Paul didn’t get hurt last year, GSW was in real trouble.

Otoh, the Warriors would have four in a row if not for Draymond’s suspension and Curry injury.  The CLE win really helped to create the illusion of a fair-ish competition.

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, my comment was snarky and not at you. Where I think NBA cap works is it effectively raised the salary for the median nba player. It did not help the superstar nba player. And, quite honestly in baseball I do think a salary cap would make the yankees even more dominant.

Baseball players would be better served imo to fight to cut team control to 4 years with a 5th year option tied to the average salary of the top 10 players in the position or something like that. Teams rightly don't want to pay for players as they decline, but that means they shouldn't get to underpay them when they are.

That would really hurt vets immediately but I fully believe middle tier players would do better after 2-3 years.

Team control should absolutely be cut to a max age or max number of years or some combination. The lower the better in my opinion. Players should be allowed to spend their most productive years wherever they like for the amount of money they want/can get.

I think the floor raised the midlevel salary specifically more than the cap. The cap just suppresses earnings on the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sox are the only one making an offer, they can make whatever comparison they want for their initial offer and surely can change it if there's another strong bidder, which, doesn't appear to be the case right now.

Share this post


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

Sorry, my comment was snarky and not at you. Where I think NBA cap works is it effectively raised the salary for the median nba player. It did not help the superstar nba player. And, quite honestly in baseball I do think a salary cap would make the yankees even more dominant.

Baseball players would be better served imo to fight to cut team control to 4 years with a 5th year option tied to the average salary of the top 10 players in the position or something like that. Teams rightly don't want to pay for players as they decline, but that means they shouldn't get to underpay them when they are.

That would really hurt vets immediately but I fully believe middle tier players would do better after 2-3 years.

I think the change that would most improve baseball is reducing the time teams control their young players. Right now the potential value of young players kicking ass is so high that most teams see no reason to build through free agency, which is usually cluttered with 30+ year olds who no longer have steroids to keep them going late into their 30s. By reducing the time that teams control their young players, those players are less valuable *and* there will be more young, promising free agents available. This should lead more teams to try to win every year rather than do drastic teardowns in an effort to stock their farm systems with as much young talent as possible no matter the cost to the MLB product.

Share this post


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

Does JR even watch baseball? Because trying to compare him to a 31 year old Pujols is absolutely ludicrous.

I agree, thats why JR is leading these negotiations and KW is not involved at this point. Jr beleives thats a fair comp. Organization is split on his value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoxFan562004 said:

If Sox are the only one making an offer, they can make whatever comparison they want for their initial offer and surely can change it if there's another strong bidder, which, doesn't appear to be the case right now.

All this 7/175 nonsense is doing then is opening the door for a "mystery" team to talk themselves into pursuing Machado and possibly matching the Sox and being a more desired franchise for him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the change that would most improve baseball is reducing the time teams control their young players. Right now the potential value of young players kicking ass is so high that most teams see no reason to build through free agency, which is usually cluttered with 30+ year olds who no longer have steroids to keep them going late into their 30s. By reducing the time that teams control their young players, those players are less valuable *and* there will be more young, promising free agents available. This should lead more teams to try to win every year rather than do drastic teardowns in an effort to stock their farm systems with as much young talent as possible no matter the cost to the MLB product.

I should add that there is a cost because fans like continuity; I'd like for there to be a clever solution that allows teams to retain their star youngsters for a longer term while paying them handsomely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bmags said:

The Golden State Warriors lost 2 years ago to the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Heat lost to the Mavs.

edit:
The rockets took GSW to a game 7 and it took a historically poor shooting night to lose

The OKC thunder took GSW to a game 7 

The 2000 lakers went like 16-1 in the playoffs.

Am I lost ? Am I still in the Machado mega thread ? ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Why would it piss off the Sox?


Lets say in a hypothetical world the White Sox are really close to getting this done. Lozano/Machado arent happy they arent getting $300mil, but the market has shown $250mil is as good as it gets. In order to save some face, Lozano asks the Sox if he can leak their initial offer.

Why would the Sox say no?

Sox fans arent going to be upset that they got Machado for $250. They are going to be over the moon happy. Other teams arent going to be upset, because the leak was factual.

The $175mil leak helps no one. It hurts the Sox because its so low that it theoretically it makes another team jump in. And there is no way Lozano would want anyone to know this. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your last 3-4 posts.

Share this post


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

Does JR even watch baseball? Because trying to compare him to a 31 year old Pujols is absolutely ludicrous.

For a starting bid?  Nobody has reported any other team has made an offer.  At this point, why would the Sox come off it?  It's all patchwork, but if Manny and team are at something like 10/325 and Sox had some bid at some point of 7/175, wouldn't  8/260 or so be a reasonable compromise and a very likely number the Sox have as their top bid eventually?  Nobody in the market seems to be pushing them to that yet, though.

Share this post


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

I agree, thats why JR is leading these negotiations and KW is not involved at this point. Jr beleives thats a fair comp. Organization is split on his value.

so in your view, 8/250 is total BS?

Share this post


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

I should add that there is a cost because fans like continuity; I'd like for there to be a clever solution that allows teams to retain their star youngsters for a longer term while paying them handsomely.

However, it may cut down on tanking. And fans also like appearance of competitiveness, and it would make building through free agency a thing again.

Share this post


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

I should add that there is a cost because fans like continuity; I'd like for there to be a clever solution that allows teams to retain their star youngsters for a longer term while paying them handsomely.

There has to be a franchise tag or something that keeps players with their current teams, otherwise the four big boys will just flex their financial muscle and we'll have Yanks/Sawx and Cubs/Dodgers every year in the ALCS/NLCS. The only reason why there is 6 years of player control is that it is really hard for most teams, especially those in less desirable locations, to retain their own talent. This is the problem the NBA is having currently. You don't want that in baseball, too. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


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

so in your view, 8/250 is total BS?

Yes. Its an attempt to get Philly to shift focus from Bryce to Manny, and shut out Sox on signing by “matching” their offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny how the Sox are getting destroyed for there "low ball" offer. What does that say about the other 29 teams? I would be pissed that my team didnt offer that contract, so it goes to show you how pointless the tweet by olney was

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw Manny pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Yes. Its an attempt to get Philly to shift focus from Bryce to Manny, and shut out Sox on signing by “matching” their offer.

Super

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IowaPG said:

I should add that KW is not involved in negotiations at this point. 

KW never handles the negotiations, especially on FA signings.  It’s always been Hahn or Jerry (for the big ones).

Share this post


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

KW never handles the negotiations, especially on FA signings.  It’s always been Hahn or Jerry (for the big ones).

 

Not True. KW is always involved in FA and international signings . May not be the lead negotiater, but normally always present and opinionated.

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.

×