Hawks get Hossa, Bears get Mack, Cubs get Lester plus a number of other big signings, Bulls and Sox get nothing. 

 

4 minutes ago, Peacock Wrestler said:

I don't follow that logic.  In that case I'm the number one plan since there isn't any evidence and are completely silent on the idea (even though I would sign at league minimum).

It’s more or less deductive reasoning and a whole lot of hope.  ?

That's an interesting overnight leak from Philly. I see two situations being plausible based off of it.

1) Philly is really being that rigid (like the Sox with Machado) about the opt-out. If this is the case, they're delusional. Boras usually gets what he wants.

2) Harper is all set to sign with another team, and Philly is getting in front of the damage control by leaking some demands that Boras is asking of Philly in order for them to look better when the contract details leak. 

6 minutes ago, Peacock Wrestler said:

I don't follow that logic.  In that case I'm the number one plan since there isn't any evidence and are completely silent on the idea (even though I would sign at league minimum).

I don’t follow that logic either. It’s kind of amusing to me that some do but hey whatever floats their boat. 

39 minutes ago, bschmaranz said:

Because it's a message board and that's what we do 

36 minutes ago, shipps said:

Their silence and complete lack of any evidence that they are pursuing him in any way have prompted some to believe that he has been their number one plan from the beginning. 

This would explain why they were mad Machado didn't sign. Since he was their second option. 

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

“Now, in big, big deals the player gets the opportunity to bail on the contract at a certain point. Scott Boras, from day one, has insisted that there be an opt-out clause in there, quite honestly, because he's not positive that Harper will like it here. That is part of the whole situation,” he said.

"Boras said we have to have an opt-out and it has to be after year three," Cataldi continued. "Three years guaranteed and then we get the chance to leave. If we don't, then we get the other seven years and he's here for the full ten. He gets the one opt out after the three.”

“They (the Phillies) say, not only does that not work for us, but we can't sell that to Philadelphia. We're gonna poison the well before he gets here. He's basically saying, we're not sure about Philadelphia. The opt-out clause is what's holding up an agreement with the Philadelphia Phillies and I can tell you, Scott Boras insists that it be three years."

Aren't we supposed to give links when quoting any particular article ?

I wish that this would be over soon. The longer this takes the more nervous I would be if I was a Phillies fan. They should of had this locked up last week. 

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

“Now, in big, big deals the player gets the opportunity to bail on the contract at a certain point. Scott Boras, from day one, has insisted that there be an opt-out clause in there, quite honestly, because he's not positive that Harper will like it here. That is part of the whole situation,” he said.

"Boras said we have to have an opt-out and it has to be after year three," Cataldi continued. "Three years guaranteed and then we get the chance to leave. If we don't, then we get the other seven years and he's here for the full ten. He gets the one opt out after the three.”

“They (the Phillies) say, not only does that not work for us, but we can't sell that to Philadelphia. We're gonna poison the well before he gets here. He's basically saying, we're not sure about Philadelphia. The opt-out clause is what's holding up an agreement with the Philadelphia Phillies and I can tell you, Scott Boras insists that it be three years."

IF this is true, we need to San Diego Philadelphia. I'm all in for double doinking the city of Philly by signing Harper and Keuchel. 

I'd offer this to Harper

 

10 Years 330 Million and opt out after 3 years. We'd have him for at least 2 years of our window and can convince him to stay during that time. If he opts out, and Eloy/Yoan/Robert are the truth, then we don't care if he opts out and leaves, although he'd likely want to stay. 

The White Sox are asking Harper to bet on them.  Why should he bet on them?  Same with Machado.  The White Sox are not desirable.  There is as likely a chance they average 65 wins over the next five years as there is they average 85.

The White Sox needed to realize that they will have to pay for these guys and they don't want to therefore they are not getting them.

Adam Jones will be signed soon is my guess.

2 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

The White Sox are asking Harper to bet on them.  Why should he bet on them?  Same with Machado.  The White Sox are not desirable.  There is as likely a chance they average 65 wins over the next five years as there is they average 85.

The White Sox needed to realize that they will have to pay for these guys and they don't want to therefore they are not getting them.

Adam Jones will be signed soon is my guess.

I'm not sure he is that much better than our boy Engel.

1 minute ago, oldsox said:

I'm not sure he is that much better than our boy Engel.

And no one would disagree with you. But I sort of expect them to sign CarGo or Jones.

15 minutes ago, elwood5892 said:

I wish that this would be over soon. The longer this takes the more nervous I would be if I was a Phillies fan. They should of had this locked up last week. 

Sox and phillies both seemed to play the market more than the player. So far playing for the player has been a better play to sign them.

Just now, soxfan2014 said:

And no one would disagree with you. But I sort of expect them to sign CarGo or Jones.

How about both, and keep Eloy down another year? His defense needs work!

11 minutes ago, Cashman said:

How about both, and keep Eloy down another year? His defense needs work!

Can you say, "grievance?"

The issue is that the 3 year opt out is only palatable for current contenders. Of the Sox, Phillies and Dodgers, the 3 year opt out only makes sense for the Dodgers. If Boras isn't willing to accept a 5 year out, then either Harper just has to sign a 3 year deal with the Dodgers or accept the 5 year out. 

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The issue is that the 3 year opt out is only palatable for current contenders. Of the Sox, Phillies and Dodgers, the 3 year opt out only makes sense for the Dodgers. If Boras isn't willing to accept a 5 year out, then either Harper just has to sign a 3 year deal with the Dodgers or accept the 5 year out. 

a 3 year opt out makes plenty of sense for the Phillies. 

Just now, soxfan2014 said:

Can you say, "grievance?"

It was a joke, he should of been up in July of last season. 

 

Kenny has targeted both Adam Jones as well as CarGo, so that is why I made the joke. Kenny always gets his man!

If news breaks in the next 24 hours that the Sox have signed Harper to a 10/325 deal with a 3 year opt out, and we find out shortly after that the Phillies wouldn't give the opt out and that's why he chose the Sox, how would you feel?  How do you think Phillies fans would feel?  This tells you everything you need to know. 

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I still think 3 years of Bryce Harper is a lot better than zero

Exactly.  Think of it this way:

What if someone told you “Bryce Harper is actually looking for only a 3yr/$105M deal and the Sox can beat out the rest of the league and get him?  He’s theirs.  Oh, and by the way, if you sign him to a 3yr contract there’s a possibility that you’ll have him for 7 more years.”

I’d take that in a heartbeat.

10 minutes ago, Perfect Vision said:

If news breaks in the next 24 hours that the Sox have signed Harper to a 10/325 deal with a 3 year opt out, and we find out shortly after that the Phillies wouldn't give the opt out and that's why he chose the Sox, how would you feel?  How do you think Phillies fans would feel?  This tells you everything you need to know. 

If news breaks that a miracle happened and the Sox signed Bryce Harper I highly doubt any of us would give a crap about an opt out after three years

7 minutes ago, RTC said:

Exactly.  Think of it this way:

What if someone told you “Bryce Harper is actually looking for only a 3yr/$105M deal and the Sox can beat out the rest of the league and get him?  He’s theirs.  Oh, and by the way, if you sign him to a 3yr contract there’s a possibility that you’ll have him for 7 more years.”

I’d take that in a heartbeat.

I tend to agree with this. If he were to sustain some career-threatening injury shortly afterwards, you would have been stuck with him anyway if there were no opt-out. You get him for three years and even though you'll probably eventually have to go through this circus again, if things take-off like you hope, re-signing him again may not be as difficult as it seems right now. This opt-out seems like an issue that should not be a deal-killer.

8 minutes ago, RTC said:

Exactly.  Think of it this way:

What if someone told you “Bryce Harper is actually looking for only a 3yr/$105M deal and the Sox can beat out the rest of the league and get him?  He’s theirs.  Oh, and by the way, if you sign him to a 3yr contract there’s a possibility that you’ll have him for 7 more years.”

I’d take that in a heartbeat.

Signing him, for however long, is a win just because its a signal to the fan base and the rest of the league that they're willing to spend and make this a much more attractive destination. 

49 minutes ago, bmags said:

Sox and phillies both seemed to play the market more than the player. So far playing for the player has been a better play to sign them.

This is especially true when dealing with Boras.  No cutesy negotiating games like what went on with Machado will work with Boras, the same way they didn't work with Lozano.  Say what you will about Boras, but the guy delivers every time for his big name clients.  Harper will walk away with an enormous contract when all is said and done, and the only way the Sox will get him is if they pay the top dollar that Boras is commanding on behalf of his client.  

1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Aren't we supposed to give links when quoting any particular article ?

It was from a link I had on the same page....above that.