Wild

29 minutes ago, Sambuca said:

It’s 27mil per year. 

He will only be 28 next season, and he has been worth 27mil every season of his career so far.  He’s been worth almost double that in some seasons.  

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

Edited December 14, 20223 yr by HOFHurt35

Just now, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $108 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

I was responding to the post saying the Giants would be lucky to get three years of surplus value.

I did not say anything about the back end. There’s no question they will be eating money in the last few years, but there is crazy value in the front of that contract.

At these rates the White Sox may never sign a player ever again. 

1 minute ago, soxfan3530 said:

At these rates the White Sox may never sign a player ever again. 

With Jerry's shrewd contract negotiation skills? We'll be kings of the thrift shop free agents. 

Just now, ron883 said:

With Jerry's shrewd contract negotiation skills? We'll be kings of the thrift shop free agents. 

If you sign them on Tuesday they are usually cheaper, but I guess Correa didn't have a Red Tag.

I don't mind  having  a stable and strong franchise albeit with a team that is  mired in mediocrity. The alternative could have long lasting negative impacts on stadium upkeep and improvements, spring training facilities,  scouting, advertising, and forcing more and more money out of fans for tickets and cable subscriptions. It isn't worth the crap shoot to go all in with a few mega player contracts.  It just isn't.

9 minutes ago, soxfan3530 said:

At these rates the White Sox may never sign a player ever again. 

I honestly think this is true. Thankfully Jerry is 86. It'll be a short period of suffering for us.

So do the White Sox trade for Brandon Crawford + cash now? 

1 hour ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

He’s 28 now. Odds are that he’ll see a strong decline in his mid 30’s. I foresee them getting 5-7 good years from this contract and 5-7 years that are painful, trotting out a sub par player because he makes 30 mil a year and you have to play him. 

2 hours ago, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

Feel like a TA trade just became a lot more likely.

the Sox being what they are, it's crazy they don't  put everything possible into building up the minors, and just keep churning youth

Edited December 14, 20223 yr by Chick Mercedes

42 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

the Sox being what they are, it's crazy they don't  put everything possible into building up the minors, and just keep churning youth

Yup, these insane contracts prove that the Sox can’t afford to be major players in free agency while Jerry owns the team.  While I expect this crazy spending to eventually revert back to more sane levels when one or two of these deals totally blow up, that won’t be during these last couple years of our window.

As such, the Sox should strongly consider selling off some short term pieces in Anderson, Hendriks, & Giolito.  I don’t think there is any chance Jerry would ok that given the Central is very winnable with a couple mid tier moves, but it would allow us to capitalize off this crazy seller’s market and add some legit controllable talent.

And for the record, I think there is zero chance Tim is traded.  All signs point to Hendricks being moved to open up space to sign a B/C tier OF free agent.

37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Yup, these insane contracts prove that the Sox can’t afford to be major players in free agency while Jerry owns the team.  While I expect this crazy spending to eventually revert back to more sane levels when one or two of these deals totally blow up, that won’t be during these last couple years of our window.

As such, the Sox should strongly consider selling off some short term pieces in Anderson, Hendriks, & Giolito.  I don’t think there is any chance Jerry would ok that given the Central is very winnable with a couple mid tier moves, but it would allow us to capitalize off this crazy seller’s market and add some legit controllable talent.

And for the record, I think there is zero chance Tim is traded.  All signs point to Hendricks being moved to open up space to sign a B/C tier OF free agent.

As a UK Sox fan and also a football (soccer) fan, wages have kept on rising and have never reverted to sane levels. There are 17 year olds who have never made a first team appearance on £20,000 a week, and the good players are on £250,000 or more a week, and the world class players on as much as £500,000 a week or more. Admittedly contracts are shorter, 3 to 5 years, but often clubs have to pay transfer fees as well, and these are ridiculous for an international player you are looking at £40- 100 million. The only big difference in football is that there is no salary cap or luxury tax and even the attempts at limiting clubs spends by Financial Fair Play rules don't stop spending.

The length of the FA contracts in baseball is surprising but it is just a way of spreading the cost and reducing the annual outlay to make the team wages keep within (or nearly within) the luxury tax. But the wages for good or better FAs will likely keep on rising if the example of football (soccer) is anything to go by.

5 hours ago, fathom said:

Dodgers and Red Sox definitely could be interested in Timmy if Swanson goes to Cubs or Twins.

I read where the Dodgers want to reset their tax bill and are going after Ohtani next year.

5 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

This is a similar contract to Harper and the price of poker. I think , because it is more than one  or two  teams that are doing this, baseball is telling you something. There is a lot more money available than the owners want you to believe. 

If anything, I think this decreases the chances of the Sox trading TA, not that I thought there was much of a chance anyway. This pretty much knocks the Twins from serious contender. 

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

This is a similar contract to Harper and the price of poker. I think , because it is more than one  or two  teams that are doing this, baseball is telling you something. There is a lot more money available than the owners want you to believe. 

Exactly, if a club came up for sale there would be no shortage of bidders, equally it explains why many owners don't want to sell, owners of MLB teams don't lose money even when offering big contracts, they expect to reap the revenue of increased crowds, advertising and merchandising that big signings generate, let alone the potential increases from a successful team.

I thought the Cubs were going to make a big splash. Are they going to overpay for Swanson now?

5 minutes ago, HoosierSox said:

I thought the Cubs were going to make a big splash. Are they going to overpay for Swanson now?

That would be my guess. Maybe 8/$175-$200M?

The average per year is not bad, and it'll probably look like a bargain over the next 5 years or so.  But a 13 year deal is wild.

Swanson is one of the luckiest benefiters of timing and want in baseball history.

7 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

It’s absurd, but it seems so rare that any player actually finishes out a large contract with any team.  They probably view it as getting a good front end then try to move him when it isn’t working out anymore to some team looking for a seasoned vet in a playoff push.  Unless he totally dive bombs like Heyward

I don't see it as a bad deal for SF, at all. Go look at their future contract status...only 19 mil was committed beyond 2024 before this deal. They have a payroll now, that is only 13 mil over our current garbage pile. And, they have a franchise SS for the foreseeable future.

And just think, 12 months ago we were in a lockout with the owners crying unprofitable.

3rd best SS in the class gets the most moola