Look at Ray Ray Run

Moncada was a bad 2nd baseman; IDK why, but he was flat out bad over there. Moncada also was quoted saying he felt more comfortable at 3rd than 2nd, so this was a move he seemed to support and be interested in. This isn't really the same scenario; you'd now be asking him to move out of the IF all together. I'm not sure why we're using Moncada's prior defensive performance at an entirely different position to compare to Rendon's success at one position.

Moncada is a superstar level player, and he's a better defender at third (possibly) than Rendon. These are still people you are managing; what kind of message does it send to Moncada after all he's done and how hard he's worked that you're going to move him again, despite him being a bonafide MLB star? Ego's come into play in sports; heck, "Mr Selfless" himself Derek Jeter didn't move off of SS for a far superior SS (A-Rod). I wouldn't do anything that could be detrimental to Moncada, because he's every bit as important to this rebuild and teams success as Rendon would be. If Moncada came to you and said, "hey, I'll move to RF for this guy and master the position" then fine, but that isn't something that a lot of guys would do.

Resources are better spent on areas of need, imo. This isn't like having 7 pitchers because injuries happen. You're literally forced to move one of the two to a position they have not excelled at in a similar fashion. Rendon isn't likely to move, either, so in reality you have to move your best player who played excellent and may actually be a better defender than Rendon. I wouldn't be mad, but I think the money couldn't certainly be spent smarter.

That would make sense. So they have 304 days to trade him then; if that is how that's structured.

It literally says he will have full no trade in the 2020 MLB season so it will not be after the conclusion of the season. It's when the calendar officially turns over to baseball's 2020 maybe? This will only be Sale's 4th season in Boston, so he'd technically have to get through all of 2021 to have 5 years of service time with them.

Yeah, I get that but I'm also not sure when the calendar turns over to 2020 for these reasons. Spring training? FA opening? I'm admittedly not sure on the rules pertaining to that.

I'm not positive the exact date in which the calendar turns over to being the 2020 season. Is it Jan 1? It may be when free agency begins. I'm not sure.

I'd say it's safe to say the report is wrong if it doesn't wrap up by the winter meetings. For huge contracts like this, there are a lot of details and things that do need to be worked out - typically, if you've agreed in principle something gets reported but, this time of year, it's possible the Club wants to announce and formalize at the Winter Meetings. If Tuesday comes and goes with no news though, then it was wrong. Regardless, I don't think the guy just made up his report for fun. Problem is, the only sources that truly matter with something this big are Baseball Pres, Owner, GM and the player/agent.

Per sources, Chris Sale will receive a full no-trade clause during 2020 season once he reaches 10 years of Major League service time. Sale's extension also includes an opt-out after 2022 and contains a vesting option for 2025 worth at least $20M based on starts. Sale would never come back here. I'd take Chris Sale in a heartbeat, and it's ironic how correct Cooper was about him being a max-effort guy all year (people laughed at Cooper for this too) being detrimental to his health.

Chris Sale is not coming back to the Chicago White Sox. Sale has a full no-trade clause.

Thanks for this; I was curious about that. I wouldn't worry as much about his K-Rate if he's a + fastball hitter. Off-speed in Japan really isn't behind off-speed stuff in the states, but fastball velocity is (at least that's how it was before, you would know more about this today).

I mean, allocating 225 million to a position that is currently filled by your best player seems like a waste of resources, and poor allocation of funds. I don't think you can just move Moncada - you could argue he's a BETTER defender at 3rd already than Rendon. So not only do you have to pay Rendon huge money, but you also need to move him or Moncada. Rendon is awesome, but he's simply not a need. Unlike starting pitching where the Sox want to claim they don't need an ace (laughable), they actually do not need any infielders.

I thought he'd get 5/125 so I was ready to spend that much, but I also understand that is more than Wheeler is worth at this point in time; I just simply think Wheeler is going to take off in the next 2-3 years and propel himself into the upper echelon of starters... but I've felt that way about plenty of players in my life who fell flat on their face, or simply didn't improve. Typically, 29 year olds in baseball do not get better; Wheeler has to skirt that to succeed. Paying for future production should be what free agency is all about, but paying in hopes that a 29 year old develops and improves is of course riskier than doing such for a 24 or 25 year old. Wheeler's projections aren't really rosey, but I just think the public projections are wrong on him. I believe he projects worse than most every starter none of Soxtalks want.

Say's who? They offered 5/125, how the heck is 6/132 a better deal? He didn't take the 7 million extra from the Sox; I don't think another 7 million is a game changer here; especially with another year attached.

You see a little different stuff in Japan. He could be a great fastball hitter who struggles with off-speed - which would be more beneficial in MLB and Nippon baseball. But if hes a bad fastball hitter who succeeds vs off speed then his k-rate would be very alarming. Tough to analyze these guys.

Same; always appreciate different view points and I agree with you regarding wealth management accounts and etc. Bottom lines drive a lot more decisions in the financial sector than it may in the massive contract/entertainment world. Ego's are much more involved when it comes to numbers for individuals, and the Unions goal is not individualized - it's typically a broad goal.

How is that obvious at all? The driving force according to actual reports was family and not money. The higher up in the market you go the more neccessary and the more pressure you feel to take the highest guaranteed offer. As I mentioned tax calculations 5 years out on a MLB contract is difficult to forecast exactly as it's tied directly to scheduling and tax laws change with relative frequency. You pay taxes based on the city you are in for that game, not based on your home teams locations. Youd need a schedule 5 years out and youd need to factor every city and how many games and etc. Its certainly possible though. If you can point me to a case of tax reasons driving a player to take a lesser offer I'd love to read about it. Gross salaries are how wages grow in baseball. Net take home is not the driving force behind salary growth. If I come taxes were a driving force in negotiations then teams in California would consistently have to pay more for the same quality of player vs Texas and Florida and that simply does not happen and "good agents" would charge California teams more than Florida teams.

The 71st pick is worth about 3.5 million. That means the projected outcome for that slot is like .5 career WAR. The odds the 71st pick becomes as good as even one year of Colome is damn near zero. Claiming the return here is better is just being negative, again.

All I can say is this is not at all how professional sports work in negotiations and the majority of players absolutely do not ignore the union on this stance, and it doesn't make their agents bad at their jobs. The agents income is tied solely to the salary growth of the players, and the growth of salaries is tied directly to gross income - not net income. Players and agents would be working against their best interests if they took lesser offers consistently. Because your typical union negotiating tactics aren't really meaningful here (cost of living based on location and etc), the gross value of a contract is what drives the market upward. For example, in most unions you can factor in things like cost of living to negotiate raises but when you enter this stratosphere of dollars, the cost of living doesn't decrease or increase salary demands; nor do most other typical union drivers. All of these guys are negotiating on an even playing field, with the sole driver being guaranteed dollars.

The Yankees literally were quoted after the meeting saying they feared and felt after the meeting that Cole preferred the West Coast.

Deferred money isn't taken seriously because of the time value of money; it has nothing to do with taxes. At this level of money, this just isn't true - this is something I can actually speak on from a position of knowledge for once as I actually have real sources for once in my life on this. The union wants you taking the most guaranteed money - period, end of story. Your agent certainly wants you taking the most guaranteed money. It doesn't mean the union called Wheeler yelling at him, but a part of the union messaging and education is on contracts and maximizing your worth for your "brothers and union peers." The union couldn't care less about taxes state to state. For example, if the Rangers or Marlins offered Manny 285 million, even though there's no income tax and California tax is absurd, he wouldn't sign there because the Net was higher. The gross is what matters for growing contracts. Every player who takes less decreases the growth slightly. Also, your last sentence is spot on. There's ways around all of this tax nonsense anyway.

Say what? They've had the easiest schedule in the NBA, and they are still 8-14. It's not getting better from here. Lavine is just another high volume scorer on a bad team. His defense makes James Harden look like Marcus Ginyard on that side of the floor. His shot selection is piss poor. I bought into Lavine for a lot of reasons this off-season - there was a lot saying he could take a huge leap forward this year. It didn't happen. Being the 8th seed would be significantly worse than being one of the worst teams in the NBA, but I don't think we have to worry too much about that. The Bulls blow big leads because they have zero defensive discipline, and they are one of the worst fast break teams in the NBA on defense and offense.

Can you post these rumors that the Angels would pay "nearly any price?" My point remains; the Yankees would outbid the Angels for Cole - from knowing what we know about Cashman, and what he actually did say at the meeting yesterday.

If this is true, the NYY couldn't pay Cole enough to lure him East and Cashman has been infatuated with the guy for over a decade. The yankees basically told the guy the money would be what he wants and he still would have passed. This could have just been a shit off season for this stuff. Cole wanted to go home. Stras has reportedly wanted to stay in Wash and Wheeler wanted to stay out east. It is what it is.

He told the twins yesterday, ftr, when they were getting ready to submit. At that point I'm sure they knew the twins weren't going anywhere high enough to push it. Sox gave 7 million more so 10 million more certainly wouldnt be enough. At some point you need to just move on. As I noted yesterday, the union typically wants a player to take the most money. Reason being, salaries increase marginally over time. It may only be 7 million more from the Sox but it's 6% more and within the market that matters. This is about growing salaries and egos for contract sizes. Taxes arent really something that makes players pause I dont think. His agent gets commission on the full amount too, so I doubt many agents are trying to talk their client into the smaller number ever.