The thread title is wrong, very, very wrong.

 

32 minutes ago, shipps said:

Why Phil Rogers tho?

I feel like Phil Connors in Groundhog Day every day when I come to this board.

I read that Rogers tweet as Machado is coming to the White Sox, and there really are no competing offers. Maybe the Johnny Hustle comments were more damaging than people thought?

I'm not saying he's wrong, but if Rodgers' tweet were negative, it'd be getting dismissed on here. I doubt he actually knows anything.

1 minute ago, KnightsOnMintSt said:

I read that Rogers tweet as Machado is coming to the White Sox, and there really are no competing offers. Maybe the Johnny Hustle comments were more damaging than people thought?

I think so. I mean maybe not a ton but maybe another team or two would be in on him.

I’m sorry it just makes no sense for that report from Phil to be true and there not be five other teams strongly in on MM. 

1 hour ago, Sockin said:

 

FWIW: Actually, the deal was announced on February 19th. The formal signing for media purposes took place on the 26th. 

I will be truly shocked if they got a deal done for 7/220 with no opt outs. There couldn't be a better deal for the Sox. It would be insanely team friendly. 

8 minutes ago, SCCWS said:

FWIW: Actually, the deal was announced on February 19th. The formal signing for media purposes took place on the 26th. 

Feb 19th is the day that i've aligned myself to since soxfest ended, I cant tell you how nauseating feb 20th and beyond will be if no signing ha

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

Feb 19th is the day that i've aligned myself to since soxfest ended, I cant tell you how nauseating feb 20th and beyond will be if no signing ha

February 20th would be a Wednesday...

Ah Ned Rierson fuck you!!

Also Manny actually banking on meaningful changes to FA that benefit him so much that he's willing to give up money just to try again at age 29 is unlikely IMO.

Say the players get guaranteed revenue from league, that may benefit players as a whole but not necessarily top players, they may actually make less while others make more. 

Making free agency more expensive may make even less teams try at it. 

Realistic ways to help players includes lowering the length of team control, that again would not help manny machado's market, it would hurt it.

It is very unlikely he will personally benefit in the next CBA.

Just now, bmags said:

Also Manny actually banking on meaningful changes to FA that benefit him so much that he's willing to give up money just to try again at age 29 is unlikely IMO.

Say the players get guaranteed revenue from league, that may benefit players as a whole but not necessarily top players, they may actually make less while others make more. 

Making free agency more expensive may make even less teams try at it. 

Realistic ways to help players includes lowering the length of team control, that again would not help manny machado's market, it would hurt it.

It is very unlikely he will personally benefit in the next CBA.

Yup, you're not going to be able to force owners to pay aging guys a ton of money for what they did in the past again. The front line is going to be players in years 1-7

14 minutes ago, mqr said:

Yup, you're not going to be able to force owners to pay aging guys a ton of money for what they did in the past again. The front line is going to be players in years 1-7

Six years of control (which can be made into seven easily) is just way too much in any sport. That's going to be the majority of a player's career in most cases. MLBPA is going to need to get that reduced to 4 with no manipulation capability if they want their guys to get paid in free agency.

One downside of a 2-3 year deal and Manny walks would be if we missed out on someone else in free agency during that same window. But  Manny will put life back into the fanbase and also take pressure off Moncada and Eloy as they develop. 

7 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Six years of control (which can be made into seven easily) is just way too much in any sport. That's going to be the majority of a player's career in most cases. MLBPA is going to need to get that reduced to 4 with no manipulation capability if they want their guys to get paid in free agency.

Alternatively I think they could go with a much higher minimum salary. If everyone in the big leagues was making $3 million - suddenly I'm much more willing to pay $4 million for Jay, because why not? Add in some extra money for the minor leagues, and you've done something else - effectively establishing a leaguewide minimum payroll. 

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Alternatively I think they could go with a much higher minimum salary. If everyone in the big leagues was making $3 million - suddenly I'm much more willing to pay $4 million for Jay, because why not? Add in some extra money for the minor leagues, and you've done something else - effectively establishing a leaguewide minimum salary. 

I'd love to see a salary floor of $75 million established, but I doubt the cheaper owners would ever allow it.

12 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Six years of control (which can be made into seven easily) is just way too much in any sport. That's going to be the majority of a player's career in most cases. MLBPA is going to need to get that reduced to 4 with no manipulation capability if they want their guys to get paid in free agency.

There should be compounding bonuses...the Owners are never going to give up 6 years, because sometimes it takes a prized prospect 2-3 years to figure it out(See Hosmer/Moustakas/Gordon from KC for reference) KC would never have had an opportunity to win a WS with only 4 years of team control. Those guys would have been free right about the time their window opened. What can happen is that they can have a compounding bonus structure from years 2-4 so that if players perform, they get paid handsomely for their actual performance that year the following year. If they keep on performing, the bonuses get really lucrative. At year four the team has an option to sign the player long-term or go to arbitration. If the team goes to arbitration, they get him for one more year, and at the end the player is completely free. There is no negotiating with said player until they hit the FA market. If player and team do not agree on value on a long term deal, they get a 6th "franchise" year in which the player gets paid an average of the top 5 salaries at his position. Same rules apply here, where the player is guaranteed to hit the open market if they can't agree to an extension by 6/30 of the 6th year. Player can be traded as a rental, but same rules apply to acquiring team. No negotiating with the player until FA period starts. Also, all team/player options in a contract extension become mutual. Both parties want to have to keep their option or else the player is free. 

Edited February 5, 20197 yr by Jack Parkman

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

This just seems so dumb.  Even if we have all the leverage in the world, going cheap on the broader offer is fucking stupid if it means Machado will demand an opt-out after two years.  I refuse to accept the Sox would do something so short-sighted and for now will assume Phil Rogers is simply just an idiot.

6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This just seems so dumb.  Even if we have all the leverage in the world, going cheap on the broader offer is fucking stupid if it means Machado will demand an opt-out after two years.  I refuse to accept the Sox would do something so short-sighted and for now will assume Phil Rogers is simply just an idiot.

Not to mention the fact that waiting until almost every player that could possibly help them win this year would be removed from the market...from the cutting off the nose to spite the face guide to public relations.

If you polled it, I couldn’t imagine such a move even hitting 25% popularity in this particular fanbase.

Edited February 5, 20197 yr by caulfield12

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

Six years of control (which can be made into seven easily) is just way too much in any sport. That's going to be the majority of a player's career in most cases. MLBPA is going to need to get that reduced to 4 with no manipulation capability if they want their guys to get paid in free agency.

It's wasn't  bad until the owners and GMs finally got smart and aren't over paying. There were routine 7, 8, 9 and 10 year deals that rarely worked for the team but were great for the players. A rod, Puljols, Hampton, Stanton. None of them really worked out for the team. This is just a market correction. The no salary cap and guaranteed  contract model has worked in the players favor for 40 years. If they want to change it, they will need to give up something substantial in the next CBA.

Edited February 6, 20197 yr by ptatc

14 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Not to mention the fact that waiting until almost every player that could possibly help them win this year would be removed from the market...from the cutting off the nose to spite the face guide to public relations.

If you polled it, I couldn’t imagine such a move even hitting 25% popularity in this particular fanbase.

They aren't planning on competing this year. This would be a move to start competing in 2020.

 

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

They aren't planning on competing this year. This would be a move to start competing in 2020.

Then they better not sign a guy with an opt out after year 2.

Just now, Balta1701 said:

 

Then they better not sign a guy with an opt out after year 2.

I don't  know. It is taking a chance but are there really going to be that much higher offers when he is 28? It gives the Sox a PR boost and abridge until the farm system should start producing. 

Even if he gets an opt-out, you can negotiate and extend him before he opts out.