Should the white sox buy a prospect?

[Bob Sacamano]

For starters - it looks to me like he has 2 years left on his deal? So we're conceding that they aren't even trying for a free agent in next year's big free agent class?

Also, even if it were off the books, the money is still spent. $40 million is still $40 mil. It's going to eventually come out of something. The Sox don't have an infinite amount of money to spend.

 

Why would this be the case? Payroll would still be low.

Edited February 2, 2018 by soxfan2014

[southsider2k5]

For starters - it looks to me like he has 2 years left on his deal? So we're conceding that they aren't even trying for a free agent in next year's big free agent class?

 

Also, even if it were off the books, the money is still spent. $40 million is still $40 mil. It's going to eventually come out of something. The Sox don't have an infinite amount of money to spend.

 

Do you believe the White Sox are saving the money that they are not spending in 2017 and 2018 and putting it up for 2019?

 

Do you believe they shouldn't have signed Luis Robert, because that was $50 million? Did that effect the likelihood of their participation in the next big free agent market?

[Sarava]

Why would this be the case? Payroll would still be low.

 

I was replying to the comment that the Sox wouldn't spend any real money until Kemp's contract is off the books - which would be in 2 years. Thus it would mean the Sox aren't players for Machado or others next winter.

[southsider2k5]

I was replying to the comment that the Sox wouldn't spend any real money until Kemp's contract is off the books - which would be in 2 years. Thus it would mean the Sox aren't players for Machado or others next winter.

 

That isn't actually what I said. Spending any amount in terms of payroll.

[Sarava]

Do you believe the White Sox are saving the money that they are not spending in 2017 and 2018 and putting it up for 2019?

 

Do you believe they shouldn't have signed Luis Robert, because that was $50 million? Did that effect the likelihood of their participation in the next big free agent market?

 

If they have an inkling that they might spend $300+ mil on Machado next winter, then yes I think they would take it easy on the bank account leading up to that to better afford it.

 

And I love the Luis Robert signing. He's a bigtime prospect. He was billed as a guy that very well could be a top 5 or 10 prospect in short order. And did that affect next year's chances? Well, all the numbers come from the same place. But I've thought all along, they spent the $50 mil, knowing the next year's payroll (2018) would be significantly lower.

 

In any event, you aren't going to get a Luis Robert caliber prospect for Kemp's contract. But hey, if you can, then I could accept hurting the chances of signing Machado next year. But it's not happening. The Dodgers are stingy with their prospects. They certainly aren't giving up a haul to remove one contract.

[southsider2k5]

If they have an inkling that they might spend $300+ mil on Machado next winter, then yes I think they would take it easy on the bank account leading up to that to better afford it.

 

And I love the Luis Robert signing. He's a bigtime prospect. He was billed as a guy that very well could be a top 5 or 10 prospect in short order. And did that affect next year's chances? Well, all the numbers come from the same place. But I've thought all along, they spent the $50 mil, knowing the next year's payroll (2018) would be significantly lower.

 

In any event, you aren't going to get a Luis Robert caliber prospect for Kemp's contract. But hey, if you can, then I could accept hurting the chances of signing Machado next year. But it's not happening. The Dodgers are stingy with their prospects. They certainly aren't giving up a haul to remove one contract.

 

If the difference between Machado in 2019 -2030, and not Machado, is a fraction of the Kemp contract in 2018 and 2019, they really can't afford to sign Machado because they wouldn't be able to add anything else of significance to the team if needed in the future. Realistically it means they were never going to bid on Machado anyway, at least not at a market leading amount.

 

The White Sox have payroll room right now, and if they aren't willing to add assets with it, the rebuild isn't going to be able to go far enough to win anything anyway.

[Chicago White Sox]

If they have an inkling that they might spend $300+ mil on Machado next winter, then yes I think they would take it easy on the bank account leading up to that to better afford it.

 

And I love the Luis Robert signing. He's a bigtime prospect. He was billed as a guy that very well could be a top 5 or 10 prospect in short order. And did that affect next year's chances? Well, all the numbers come from the same place. But I've thought all along, they spent the $50 mil, knowing the next year's payroll (2018) would be significantly lower.

 

In any event, you aren't going to get a Luis Robert caliber prospect for Kemp's contract. But hey, if you can, then I could accept hurting the chances of signing Machado next year. But it's not happening. The Dodgers are stingy with their prospects. They certainly aren't giving up a haul to remove one contract.

Machado’s $300M contract is going to be over 10 years or more. We’re not paying for all of that up front. Taking on Kemp’s contract really shouldn’t impact our ability to land Machado next year. The bigger concerns will be how much of our future payroll are we willing to to commit to one player and how much long-term risk are we willing to take on in terms of contract length. Short-term cash flow really shouldn’t be a problem for us.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Chicago White Sox

[Dick Allen]

Machado’s $300M contract is going to be over 10 years or more. We’re not paying for all of that up front. Taking on Kemp’s contract really shouldn’t impact our ability to land Machado next year. The bigger concerns will be how much of our future payroll are we willing to to commit to one player and how much long-term risk are we willing to take on in terms of contract length. Short-term cash flow really shouldn’t be a problem for us.

One of the reasons they would ever be in the ballpark with Machado is the money they save now.

[Chicago White Sox]

One of the reasons they would ever be in the ballpark with Machado is the money they save now.

I'm not sure I follow. Do mind elaborating?

[Dick Allen]

I'm not sure I follow. Do mind elaborating?

I think it's pretty simple, and something you have probably done yourself when contemplating large purchases.

 

Believe it or not, money not spent in 2018 can be spent in 2019. They don't have rules against saving and spending later. Despite the overwhelming embracing of the White Sox rebuild, they had their worst attendance this century in 2017, and they haven't exactly been known for terrific attendance figures. Add that to some of the cheapest tickets in the league, saving now seems like a good plan.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Knackattack]

There's always the possibility that the Dodgers could kick something like 8-10M the Sox way towards Kemp for 2019 and at that point, if he hits in 18, some teams may be much more interested in adding him at the deadline considering he would be a solid 9-10M DH, allowing them to gain even more prospect capital for him. Smart move to think about but definitely not a necessity

Edited February 2, 2018 by Knackattack

[elrockinMT]

buy a prospect had me confused. Do you mean trade for a prospect? We bought a prospect when we signed Luis Robert at $26M plus. And we have the draft coming up again for prospects

Edited February 2, 2018 by elrockinMT

[Balta1701]

There's always the possibility that the Dodgers could kick something like 8-10M the Sox way towards Kemp for 2019 and at that point, if he hits in 18, some teams may be much more interested in adding him at the deadline considering he would be a solid 9-10M DH, allowing them to gain even more prospect capital for him. Smart move to think about but definitely not a necessity

I don't think it works this way. The Yankees, for example, traded Brian McCann last year to clear some payroll space knowing at the time that they wanted to get under the tax in 2018. They would have done exactly what you're saying if they could. They sent along $11 million, and their luxury tax number this year includes $5.5 million for McCann - exactly 1/2 of the money they sent over. I think per MLB Rules if you send over money, for luxury tax purposes that money is split evenly amongst the remaining years of the contract.

 

If the Dodgers send us $10 million, then that is $5 million more that counts against their tax this year.

[wrathofhahn]

For starters - it looks to me like he has 2 years left on his deal? So we're conceding that they aren't even trying for a free agent in next year's big free agent class?

 

Also, even if it were off the books, the money is still spent. $40 million is still $40 mil. It's going to eventually come out of something. The Sox don't have an infinite amount of money to spend.

 

The Padres are paying 5 million so it's slightly less. I'm with you it doesn't make sense to trade for Kemp unless the Dodgers offer you top prospects or a bunch of quality ones.

 

In any event, you aren't going to get a Luis Robert caliber prospect for Kemp's contract. But hey, if you can, then I could accept hurting the chances of signing Machado next year. But it's not happening. The Dodgers are stingy with their prospects. They certainly aren't giving up a haul to remove one contract.

 

I mean I honestly don't care about the Dodgers perspective on things. Noone is knocking down the door for Kemp if they don't offer a good deal he can stay a dodger and ultimately be bought out or be moved next year when a team would need to eat less money. I do think there is a chance a remote one that they want to sign Darvish or some top shelf pitcher and they need to move Kemp deal to facilitate the move to keep them under the repeater tax.

 

In that case maybe from the dodger perspective they wouldn't be looking at it as straight Kemp trade but also as essentially trading for Darvish or Arrietta but yeah it's not our problem. They can hoard their own prospects Ideally it probably would make more sense to invest that 38 million into the farm through IFA and overslot signings then anything the Dodgers would offer but I think Hahn should at least listen.

 

[Balta1701]

They can hoard their own prospects Ideally it probably would make more sense to invest that 38 million into the farm through IFA and overslot signings then anything the Dodgers would offer but I think Hahn should at least listen.

The Dodgers can go ahead and hoard the prospects they have left. They have room to sign Harper next year and I think they will. But you know what else happens in 2019? Corey Seager is in Arbitration year 1 and he's going to top the $11 million barrier Bryant was close to. So good luck in 2020 when he's even more expensive. We'll wave from the mound while celebrating.

[credezcrew24]

The Dodgers can go ahead and hoard the prospects they have left. They have room to sign Harper next year and I think they will. But you know what else happens in 2019? Corey Seager is in Arbitration year 1 and he's going to top the $11 million barrier Bryant was close to. So good luck in 2020 when he's even more expensive. We'll wave from the mound while celebrating.

 

You're acting like it's a bad thing for teams to have a player that is good enough to get 10 million in their first year of arbitration

[credezcrew24]

The Dodgers can go ahead and hoard the prospects they have left. They have room to sign Harper next year and I think they will. But you know what else happens in 2019? Corey Seager is in Arbitration year 1 and he's going to top the $11 million barrier Bryant was close to. So good luck in 2020 when he's even more expensive. We'll wave from the mound while celebrating.

 

You're acting like it's a bad thing for teams to have a player that is good enough to get 10 million in their first year of arbitration

[BlackSox13]

You're acting like it's a bad thing for teams to have a player that is good enough to get 10 million in their first year of arbitration

Not at all. Let's not forget the Dodgers had to lay out a plan for the commissioners office to get under the threshold. Then add in the possibility of Kershaw opting out after the '18 season which would be very costly to future Dodger payrolls and as Balta pointed out, Seager's eventual salary spike and the Dodgers reported interest in Harper. If the dodgers are to remain under the threshold while extending Kershaw/paying Seager and signing Harper, they have more than their work cut out for them. To the Dodgers I say, good luck with that.

[GenericUserName]

Not at all. Let's not forget the Dodgers had to lay out a plan for the commissioners office to get under the threshold. Then add in the possibility of Kershaw opting out after the '18 season which would be very costly to future Dodger payrolls and as Balta pointed out, Seager's eventual salary spike and the Dodgers reported interest in Harper. If the dodgers are to remain under the threshold while extending Kershaw/paying Seager and signing Harper, they have more than their work cut out for them. To the Dodgers I say, good luck with that.

The Dodgers could give two flying f**** about staying under the luxury tax after this year. They just want to get under this year so that the penalties reset, which will save them money that they can use on the luxury tax payments when all the above increases happen.

[BlackSox13]

The Dodgers could give two flying f**** about staying under the luxury tax after this year. They just want to get under this year so that the penalties reset, which will save them money that they can use on the luxury tax payments when all the above increases happen.

And when the Dodgers go back over the tax threshold, how do you propose they will get back under again if they sign Harper and extend Kershaw? Those two players alone will cost around 70M annually and probably more. That's more than 1/3 of the Dodger payroll wrapped up in two players. Sure, they can go back over again but then they will have to figure out how to get back under, just like they did this winter.

[Balta1701]

You're acting like it's a bad thing for teams to have a player that is good enough to get 10 million in their first year of arbitration

No, I'm much more incensed that teams like the Dodgers would rather sit back and be passive this year when they won 100+ games last year and have a roster that could easily win the world series this year, they need pitching, they have a way that they could get it, but they won't do it because the #50 or whatever prospect in baseball is too important to what they need to do in 2020 and they just can't give that up.