One can "dress up" this proposed deal with all of the ifs, but the bottom line is that you are acquiring a one year rental, in a year when you are not expected to be competing for a playoff berth. Hard to justify giving up, what has been considered one of the key core pieces, for the future window of contention, for a one year rental.

 

8 minutes ago, Lillian said:

One can "dress up" this proposed deal with all of the ifs, but the bottom line is that you are acquiring a one year rental, in a year when you are not expected to be competing for a playoff berth. Hard to justify giving up, what has been considered one of the key core pieces, for the future window of contention, for a one year rental.

 

In the proposed scenario, it's not a one-year rental. That would obviously be a bad idea.

4 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Sorry just woke up and read it twice to try to get my cloudy mind to understand what you were saying. So it your scenario its no matter who trades for him they will be able to extend him so the Sox have to offer the best package for him. I just have issues with trade and extend propositions for impending superstar free agents. It just doesn't happen so, to me, it's just not a realistic scenario.

It definitely doesn't happen mid-season for obvious reasons but off-season is possible for that type of move. 

1 hour ago, Buehrlesque said:

That'd be great, but the scenario in this thread is that he is going to be traded somewhere and sign an extension in-season before ever hitting the market. So the FA road is off the table.

You don't really see that happen mid-season. At least I can't remember a time. The only time I could ever see that allowed is if the negotiation window is over the all-star break and the player is off all 4 days.

11 minutes ago, Buehrlesque said:

In the proposed scenario, it's not a one-year rental. That would obviously be a bad idea.

I'm confused. The scenario outlined in the original post is that the Sox would have a 48 hour window to negotiate a contract extension. How does that equate to any kind of a guarantee that they end up with anything more than a one year rental? If failure to extend him, during that 48 hours, negated the deal, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Please enlighten me. Sorry for being so ignorant.

Edited July 10, 20187 yr by Lillian

1 minute ago, Lillian said:

I'm confused. The scenario outlined in the original post is that the Sox would have a 48 hour window to negotiate a contract extension. How does that equate to any kind of a guarantee that they end up with anything more than a one year rental? If failure to extend him, during that 48 hours, negated the deal, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Please enlighten me.

For the purposes of this hypothetical, we are assuming they agree to an extension. If they don't, the trade is never completed.

2 minutes ago, Lillian said:

I'm confused. The scenario outlined in the original post is that the Sox would have a 48 hour window to negotiate a contract extension. How does that equate to any kind of a guarantee that they end up with anything more than a one year rental? If failure to extend him, during that 48 hours, negated the deal, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Please enlighten me. Sorry for being so ignorant.

Yeah that's usually how it works. A deal contingent on extension. Theres only a couple of these I remember happening in the off-season.

1 minute ago, soxfan2014 said:

Yeah that's usually how it works. A deal contingent on extension. Theres only a couple of these I remember happening in the off-season.

I understand. So, it is a deal contingent upon an extension, and the deal is cancelled, if they fail to extend him. I don't remember ever seeing a deal like that. I learned something. Thanks.

4 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Yeah that's usually how it works. A deal contingent on extension. Theres only a couple of these I remember happening in the off-season.

 

Just now, Lillian said:

I understand. So, it is a deal contingent upon an extension, and the deal is cancelled, if they fail to extend him. I don't remember ever seeing a deal like that. I learned something. Thanks.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/03/players-that-signed-extensions-with-a-new-team.html

4 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/03/players-that-signed-extensions-with-a-new-team.html

I probably would have made note of such deals, if they had been cancelled, because of failure to extend. Thanks for the examples.

13 minutes ago, Lillian said:

I probably would have made note of such deals, if they had been cancelled, because of failure to extend. Thanks for the examples.

Of course, not all of those were contingent on an extension, but no problem. It's possible that these deals sometimes get agreed to but then fall through due to failed negotiations, too. 

 

edit- and they may not be reported 

Edited July 10, 20187 yr by Jose Abreu

41 minutes ago, Lillian said:

I probably would have made note of such deals, if they had been cancelled, because of failure to extend. Thanks for the examples.

Not all of those are examples of what is being discussed here. Just the ones with the same day extension and the extension window before trade (Santana). The scenario is a 48-hour window like the Santana deal.

Edited July 10, 20187 yr by soxfan2014

14 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Not all of those are examples of what is being discussed here. Just the ones with the same day extension and the extension window before trade (Santana). The scenario is a 48-hour window like the Santana deal.

It should be noted that the last examples of teams actually doing these kinds of deals with a negotiating window come from what, a decade ago now?

I believe in Moncada's potential so I would not trade him for Arenado. 

If you could guarantee an extension, yes.

NL players haven't worked out for us lately.  With the Sox luck, Arenado will flop and Moncada will realize his potential.

 

I'd pass.

9 hours ago, black jack said:

NL players haven't worked out for us lately.  With the Sox luck, Arenado will flop and Moncada will realize his potential.

 

I'd pass.

Quentin and Eaton?

AL acquisitions are hardly better...

12 hours ago, BlackSox13 said:

I believe in Moncada's potential so I would not trade him for Arenado. 

I believe in Moncada's potential too. That doesn't automatically disqualify this trade. It's possible Moncada lives up to a large portion of his potential but Arenado still ends up better.

26 minutes ago, Buehrlesque said:

I believe in Moncada's potential too. That doesn't automatically disqualify this trade. It's possible Moncada lives up to a large portion of his potential but Arenado still ends up better.

$250,000,000 better?

2 hours ago, Buehrlesque said:

I believe in Moncada's potential too. That doesn't automatically disqualify this trade. It's possible Moncada lives up to a large portion of his potential but Arenado still ends up better.

I'll take my chances with Moncada.

11 hours ago, BlackSox13 said:

I'll take my chances with Moncada.

/thread

On 7/10/2018 at 9:52 PM, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

If you could guarantee an extension, yes.

This is really the only reason to do it 1 for 1. With Arenado openly saying he is sick of losing, I can't see him agreeing to any sort of extension. If the Sox have any intent to pursue him after 2019, they better have a somewhat competitive-looking team by then. 

If Arenado was signed he would be the more worthy of the two. Moncada is still a prospect. 

2 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

This is really the only reason to do it 1 for 1. With Arenado openly saying he is sick of losing, I can't see him agreeing to any sort of extension.

Then if no extension is agreed upon, then no deal is consummated. No loss for the Sox.

Imagine Arenado and Eloy back to back in the order. Good grief. Yes I'd do it with an extension.