There's been speculation that the Phillies could attempt to sign both. While I doubt any team would spend that amount on both, it was brought up to someone who works in the Phillies front office and he didn't shoot down the idea of landing both of them.

And yes, it does seem like the biggest threats are the Yankees for Machado and the Phillies for Harper. But who knows, it's still early and different teams can and likely will emerge as favorites.

Edited November 16, 20187 yr by soxfan2014

23 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

There is realistically no amount of money that would cause me to flip sides.  I want a god damn whale.

This right here is the correct take. Whale or bust.

6 minutes ago, TheTruth05 said:

This right here is the correct take. Whale or bust.

Agreed. We should already expect them to sign for a fuckload of money anyway.

10 hours ago, turnin' two said:

I am all for front loading the deal to add some financial heft, but this seems batty.  Harper is great, and I'd love the Sox to sign him, but he isn't worth 50+ per season.  If he stays for the first 3 or 6 years,  it would be 3/160 or 6/315?????? That is insane.  It isn't worth it to the team.  You don't have to beat his suspected market value by 15 million per season.  In this scenario he would opt out after 3 or 6.  I would say likely after year 3, because he would still be 29 and would likely be able to command another 8-10 year deal, and if he couldn't command that deal, boy do you not want him at over 50 million for the next 3 seasons.  

The front loading is tricky with the opt outs (though remember the opt outs add value to the deal as well.  If they were doing something like this they would need to make years 1&2 attractive, 3 probably below average, then offer the opt out, then make 4&5 really attractive, with 6 below average.  Then make years 7-10 around AAV of the deal.  By doing that the Sox get some value out of years 3&6, and it should be looked at as if it were 2 separate 3 year contracts, and then a 4 year contract.  Harper gets 2 front loaded deals, and straight AAV on the back end.  So, if it is a 10/350 deal, something like 45/40/20 __OPT OUT__45/45/15__ OPT OUT__ 40/40/30/30.

That way Harper gets front loaded deals, therefore added value.  He still gets his opt outs, but the Sox get some protection.  They loading themselves up with risk averaging 50 million at all.  The AAV of the first 3 years is 35 million, though compared to a deal that is 35 across the board, it would add value, even more so compared to a backloaded or deferred deal.  The second 3 years averages the same.  The final 4 average to the same.  So the AAV would be 35.  But again, with the opt outs, you need to look at this as 3 separate contracts, with each being front loaded.  Would he opt out after 3, well, still maybe.  He would be 29, and could likely surpass 6/210 on a deal at that point.  I think, if you front load it more than that, you need to push the opt outs back.

My goal is for him to opt out in year 6 or 7. That said, I agree that you don't need to go that high on the numbers, but I was working with the number I got. Maybe something like:

45-45-40-/-55-50-40-/-40-/-25-20-15

Would be more palatable? That's 10/$375, which would still work out as the highest AAV in history (I think) while also reasonably assuring that your FA of choice (mine would be Machado) won't opt out after year 3, and will after year 7.

57 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

There is realistically no amount of money that would cause me to flip sides.  I want a god damn whale.

Absolutely. I know this is far fetched, but if we woke up tomorrow to the headline, "White Sox sign Harper to record breaking 10 year, $480 million deal", I would be instantly excited. No part of me would be upset that we spent too much.

4 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Absolutely. I know this is far fetched, but if we woke up tomorrow to the headline, "White Sox sign Harper to record breaking 10 year, $480 million deal", I would be instantly excited. No part of me would be upset that we spent too much.

Same.

 

Cubs are going to be among the genre of teams offering a short term contract, which I think will be valuable only if harper does not see the high end long term money he is seeking.

edit: this is pure speculation on my part, I am not able to listen to what bernstein is saying.

I’m shocked

I still can’t believe that people think Theo signed Darvish, Chatwood and Hamels to only put himself in a position to not be a player in this market.

8 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

 

Unless he's willing to take a discount, this isn't going to happen. 

5 minutes ago, Whitesox27 said:

Unless he's willing to take a discount, this isn't going to happen. 

I honestly feel like the Cubs dont give a crap about the luxury tax and have a ton of money to spend. 

3 minutes ago, fathom said:

I’m shocked

I still can’t believe that people think Theo signed Darvish, Chatwood and Hamels to only put himself in a position to not be a player in this market.

They certainly appear to have hardest financial road of the contenders that may buy. Their expected payroll is what, like 208 mill? This would likely push them to 240 ish range. Which, depending on the deal, could put them into huge taxes in years 2-3 of deal.

So it will be hard.

Just now, Sockin said:

I honestly feel like the Cubs dont give a crap about the luxury tax and have a ton of money to spend. 

I think cubs will spend a lot while contenders, but when even the yankees, dodgers and red sox have shown that this latest luxury tax is a meaningful deterrent, I tend to believe no team is immune.

I really hope the White Sox miss out on both.  The rebuild will be much more successful if they focus on upgrading the pitching staff and getting a couple of veteran character pieces to go with the kids.

4 minutes ago, Sockin said:

I honestly feel like the Cubs dont give a crap about the luxury tax and have a ton of money to spend. 

If anything, they should spend on relievers. Their bullpen was hot garbage after Morrow went down. 

Just now, Whitesox27 said:

If anything, they should spend on relievers. Their bullpen was hot garbage after Morrow went down. 

If they go sign Harper, they will probably use guys like Happ to flip for a closer (Diaz)

1 minute ago, Whitesox27 said:

If anything, they should spend on relievers. Their bullpen was hot garbage after Morrow went down. 

I agree.  Ottavino might be a good target for them.

Just now, RickinIndiana said:

I agree.  Ottavino might be a good target for them.

Andrew Miller seems like an ideal target, but I could see Britton given they’ve liked him in the past.

Harper to the Cubs would really be a bad thing for the Sox.

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Harper to the Cubs would really be a bad thing for the Sox.

Yes, it would be terrible.

On 11/16/2018 at 9:47 AM, Sockin said:

I honestly feel like the Cubs dont give a crap about the luxury tax and have a ton of money to spend. 

Ricketts has said he does not want to go into the Luxury Tax penalty. The only way they can do that and sign Harper is to get someone to take a number of their bad deals.

The Sox are like Iowa trying to recruit against Kentucky and Duke. They will be all polite and say they really love your program, and the direction it is going, but will never pick you.

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The Sox are like Iowa trying to recruit against Kentucky and Duke. They will be all polite and say they really love your program, and the direction it is going, but will never pick you.

Yet in this case, we have no evidence at all that Bryce and Manny even like the organization. 

How many contracts do the Cubs have coming off the books in the next few years? Off the top of my head 1 more year of Zobrist and Q, 2 more years of Lester and Chatwood for sure. I think they move on from Russell personally saving a few million. Schwarber I also think is a trade candidate that will save a few mill. They may be willing to go over for a couple of years. Who knows.

Edited November 16, 20187 yr by soxfan2014