35thstreetswarm

Low. And I think that attempting to sign both (who gets the bigger contract?), and the involvement of Boras, each introduce a host of complications that make this whole thing highly unlikely. But from a pure payroll perspective, I don't think signing both guys (if it were possible) is as crazy as it sounds, especially if there's a strong incentive for them to opt out after 5 years or so.

That could be interesting, but Lillian's question was how better to allocate the money over the next FIVE years, with the most important years being years 3-5 (and the first one included because that's the timing we're stuck with). Your proposal includes a couple of two-year contracts, which don't really fit the planned/hoped-for window of contention. I'm not a fan of signing free agents to short-term contracts at this point unless they're flip candidates. As insane as the two-star approach sounds, and as unlikely as it still is to make these stars align, I think Lillian's money-allocation reasoning is pretty sound in this unique situation where we have next to zero payroll. It would make an immediate and enormous splash and give the team an instant identity. And while I'm nervous about relying solely on our stable of prospects to fill out a contending team, I'm pretty confident that it could fill out the remains of a roster built around two established stars. There's also no way we'll have an opportunity to make this kind of free agent impact when the time is "right" (whenever that is).

This is the truth. I'm aware of no precedent for a big-name, mid-career MLB free agent leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table because of soft considerations like competitiveness, "fit", franchise popularity, or any other factor patently not worth tens of millions of dollars to any rational economic actor. I have no idea if the Sox will outbid the competition, but if they do I think they'll get their guy.

1) Sign Machado 2) Get good 3) Rebrand ourselves as Chicago's "villain" counterpart to the hokey, little league uniform-wearing squad from the other side of town

Thank you. Not sure why so many are willing to buy into the Cubs’ self-appointed dynasty status. I know everyone was promised a young murderers row lineup that would dominate for a decade. But at this point, they’ve labored to one WS title, and it was built on the back of a lightning in a bottle rotation full of career years. Nothing wrong with that—I enjoyed the hell out of the Sox doing the same—but they’re more mid 2010s Royals than 90s Braves. They’re not top 5 in baseball now and they’re not exactly trending upward.

“No need to panic...Despite all the adversity the Cubs still have the best record in the National Lea...”

I don’t see much “sky is falling” at all. Most Cub fans, like you, have been repeating these talking points all year about why there is no reason to worry or interrupt their post -2016 victory lap, despite the fact they are without a top starter, key bullpen piece, have a starting shortstop who will miss the playoffs because of suspected criminal activity, aren’t playing particularly well, etc. Im seeing no shortage of confidence or “benefit of the doubt.” We’ll see how all that works out. If if they lose early, it may well be that these Cubs have actually just become too good for the playoffs.

For decades Hawk has been the voice of my favorite team in the world, and loved them as much as I did. That goes a long way. I still wish I could have heard him call the Paulie grand slam in Game 2 of the World Series.

I knew you would be on here gloating in the wake of this terrible news and you didn’t disappoint. This must be the best day of your year, you fake f***ing fan.

Are you seriously asking for citations to prove to you that there are times when the high bid wins a bidding war? If you’re looking for examples of free agents who signed for the best contract offered, I’d start with “all of them.”

No, the basics of the competing offers get out, too (as in the examples I gave). I did do my own research and found nothing at all - looks like I'm not alone. So I'm back to my original belief (also supported by simple logic) that nobody is giving up $20M because they like a team's "history." I'll be shocked if Machado or Harper take anything but the highest bid.

I don't know about that...the basic financial terms come out pretty regularly. Everyone knew how much the Tigers overpayed for Magglio, for example. The ins and outs of the Heyward deal were well publicized (and a good example where it appeared -- contrary to normal practice -- that he may have taken less money, though that turned out to not really be accurate).

So, I'm seeing the answer to my original question as: (1) nobody can come up with a single instance of a major free agent (not end-of-career short-term deals) turning down real money because of "history" or any other non-monetary considerations, but (2) lots of people are willing to repeat, without any evidence, the conventional wisdom that it happens all the time. Thanks!

But again, the question is where is the evidence any of this matters? Manny Machado is not a historian. He isn’t being asked to decide which team’s story is the coolest. If the Sox offer him the best contract it’s hard for me to believe he would leave millions of real, U.S. dollars on the table because of factors as “soft” as history or quality of narrative.

That's my understanding. I don't think Heyward is an example of a true "underpay."

I have an honest question for those of you who may follow free agent bidding wars/contract matters more closely than I do. Is there really evidence that big-time MLB free agents (not lower-value, end-of-career type guys) turn down money, and accept clearly lower dollar offers for non-monetary reasons? When has that actually happened? I ask because there is a prevailing belief among fans that we will have to "convince" big-name free agents to come here in some way beyond giving them the best monetary offer. As in, they have to believe in Kopech, they have to like the direction of the rebuild, etc. That seems dubious to me. I think the question of whether we get Manny Machado/Bryce Harper boils down to whether our FO is willing to outbid the competition, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Wow, you’re incredibly brave

Oh man, he tweeted about the "pussification of America?" That's more annoying than I thought.

I have become convinced that a significant number of posters here are a) young children; and/or b) Cub fan trolls. Looking at it this way helps me stay sane while I navigate my way to the informed commentary.

Awesome. Further confirmation that Hahn gets it.

Will be interesting to see if the DL stint delays the arrival of "September Sale."

So do I. I always assumed they were brought back in an ironic, "so dated and bad they're funny" kind of way. Only recently did I realize that the organization isn't joking.

I think this is subject far from trivial! I started a "Uniforms" thread last year and am obsessed with uniforms myself. Though I take a less traditionalist approach than you, I am all in favor of the White Sox wearing white socks. In fact, my proposal was to maximize the "white" in the uniform given our name, maybe even have a super clean "white-on-white" look ala the big three-era Miami Heat/current Vanderbilt baseball alternate. I'd like to stick with the black and white color scheme and current logo, and would like to avoid the "default" baseball color scheme of red/blue/white. I'm not a huge pinstripe fan.

Um, yeah. Call ME crazy but I have the most fun...watching the White Sox win the World Series. I hereby challenge you to a battle of non-responsive irrelevancies. GO!

Try "CubFan4Life" or "BrixenIvy" -- or whatever handle you use when you post that lone comment on a White Sox Trib article with a crack about bad attendance/the Ligue brothers/the "White Sux".