3 minutes ago, fathom said:

Interesting that Guff retweeted this also.  Wonder if he's suggesting the Sox 10 year offer was to get other teams to go higher.

 

Eh, just shake a magic 8 ball.  Nobody has any idea what info is disinfo and what isn't.  Without knowing it's impossible to make any determinations.

Also, responding to embedded tweets isn't ideal.   Not much formatting room available in the GUI.

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by chitownsportsfan

I made a dedicated thread since that is the first white sox centric news definitively stated in quite a while and refers to both players.

Thanks,

me

I guess that Levine and McGuffey could both be right, but the Sox could still be in this, as long as they're willing to offer $50 million per year, for 7 years. Ouch!!

Fine.  350M - 400M/7yrs should lock them both up.

Love all this contradicting info pouring out, feels like we'll start seeing some resolutions on these guys (Machado, longer for Harper) in the next day or two. 

Just now, South Side Fireworks Man said:

Fine.  350M - 400M/7yrs should lock them both up.

That would be awful.  Not even worth it. 

1 minute ago, Tony said:

And shit can change real fast when things get the final conversations. All it takes is one person to blow things up or close a deal.

It's all fluff until we hear real deal numbers directly from the source. 

Without knowing anything about the specifics I'd say that any report of "club ___ is taking a hard stance on [years] [salary]" is usually BS.  You always leave things open to a counter offer, that's negotiations 101.

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

21 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

Sure Bruce.

It sure contradicts everything we have heard.  If true it would mean zero chance at any superstar.  It would also fully contradict the front office trying to say that we are being serious here.

2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

That would be awful.  Not even worth it. 

I agree and if that were the case, the Sox should be begging for an opt out clause, and then praying that someone offers even more after 5 years. $50 Million for his age 32 and 33 years would be imprudent, at best.

And to think we could have gotten another year of James McCann for what we spent on the presentations.  

9 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

Yes, because the years provide them with their protection/insurance in case they are injured, their play turns sour, etc.

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by GreenSox

6 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

As I said several pages back, baseball has not been kind to aging free agents. Going back to free agency at age 31-33 for a 3 year deal may not get them the total dollars that they can get today on a 10 year deal, even if they do perform at a high level.

The white sox could offer both 4 yr $200m contracts and not bat an eye.  Boras going back to Washington makes perfect sense especially if he feels machado goes to white sox. Harpers only team of interest is white sox. 

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by fathom

Anyone give a listen and pass along info?Cant get iTunes on my phone

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by aeichhor

2 minutes ago, aeichhor said:

Anyone give a listen and pass along info?Cant get iTunes on my phone

I tried and couldn't find anything about Machado.  Anyone else hear WSD talk about him?

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

14 minutes ago, fathom said:

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

No reason not to -- it's a better deal as you get your money quicker.  That said. 7/$300 is nearly $43 mill per year....quite the price.
I could dig a couple of 5/$200s, no opt outs.  Gives the Sox a 5 year window of winning with them.

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by GreenSox

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

It's not insane, it's just setting the price record and market too high for no reason. Might as well do 8 years and $300mm. Still breaking records. No reason to outbid yourself.

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

Because when you are talking about $30 million a year versus $50 million a year, that is an extra $20 million a year that can't be spent.  Even if you think the Sox are a $200 million payroll franchise in the future, that is 10% of your payroll EXTRA that is tied up in one player that can't be used.  A $20 million payroll slot can get you a pretty good player.  While they might be able to absorb it early, it would come back to haunt you in the later years of that deal right when your younger players are hitting their primes and getting expensive.

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Because when you are talking about $30 million a year versus $50 million a year, that is an extra $20 million a year that can't be spent.  Even if you think the Sox are a $200 million payroll franchise in the future, that is 10% of your payroll EXTRA that is tied up in one player that can't be used.  A $20 million payroll slot can get you a pretty good player.  While they might be able to absorb it early, it would come back to haunt you in the later years of that deal right when your younger players are hitting their primes and getting expensive.

But it just happens to align with the surge of cost controlled talent during that same period. Those years at the end were the ones most likely to be killed by this contract.

7 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

No reason not to -- it's a better deal as you get your money quicker.  That said. 7/$300 is nearly $43 mill per year....quite the price.
I could dig a couple of 5/$200s, no opt outs.  Gives the Sox a 5 year window of winning with them.

So great, be smart, up it to 10-$330, you’ve increased the overal total with a very small hit to your future payroll and it’s like you’ve gotten them to defer money a couple years, or you’ve pushed more money past the opt out, plus you’ve made it so the luxury tax hit is smaller which would make his contract easier to trade. All good things.

39 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

Yes, I think it matters whether it is 5 or 10 years. What if they completely fall off or suffer a career changing injury? They'll want those extra years at the end of the contract. 

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So great, be smart, up it to 10-$330, you’ve increased the overal total with a very small hit to your future payroll and it’s like you’ve gotten them to defer money a couple years, or you’ve pushed more money past the opt out, plus you’ve made it so the luxury tax hit is smaller which would make his contract easier to trade. All good things.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but at a 3% interest rate (pretty conservative)  7/300 is about the same total money as 10/330.