BigHurt3515 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Machado plans to do a free agency tour visiting teams in their cities. Dragging out the process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Lillian said: Here's a problem with one team trying to sign both of them: How do you satisfy both of these enormous egos? Each will want the biggest contract. If it's two different teams, it's a little easier because you aren't responsible for the contract of the player, whom you are not signing. However, with the same team, you could see these guys wanting the "top billing". It's an old dilemma in show business. Meh. I think these guys would be happy to team if if they're both making > $40M per season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said: Machado plans to do a free agency tour visiting teams in their cities. Dragging out the process Mentioned it before, but this is the one reason I am skeptical the sox are going to have a big offseason. We've been told, and I believe it, that the Sox are interested in long term fits and not short term bandaids. I believe that if the Sox get Harper or Machado, they'd deifnitely add other pieces to try and put together a team that has a *chance* at being in contention in 2019. But if Harper and MM don't sign for weeks, its going to be more difficult to do that. Basically, if the Sox wait around until February on Harper / MM, the market will have shrivvled up. That being said, sometimes some of the best deals can be found late in the offseason, so perhaps guys like Nelson Cruz and Mike Moustakas are still out there looking for homes when the Sox ink Harper in February, and they can be had on short team friendly deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxfrthmmrs Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Quinarvy said: Let's say Sox get deep in negotiations with both and they both want to sign - do you commit the money? Yes... why the heck not? That's the wet dream of every poster on Soxtalk ? But in reality, they would tell the other they would only sign them if the other falls through, or that the deal is on the table for him until the other signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said: Yes... why the heck not? That's the wet dream of every poster on Soxtalk ? But in reality, they would tell the other they would only sign them if the other falls through, or that the deal is on the table for him until the other signs. Its pie in the sky for sure, but the Sox have enough payroll flexibility to sign them both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxfrthmmrs Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, ChiSox59 said: Its pie in the sky for sure, but the Sox have enough payroll flexibility to sign them both. I think they could if they maximize the cap on their expenditure. However I don't think it's sustainable for a mid-market team like us beyond the first few years, the young guys would get expensive really soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 minute ago, thxfrthmmrs said: I think they could if they maximize the cap on their expenditure. However I don't think it's sustainable for a mid-market team like us beyond the first few years, the young guys would get expensive really soon. Maximize the cap? The Sox could sign both to effective 5 years $250M deals (assuming they take opt out after 5), and still be well below the luxury tax for at least a few seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxfrthmmrs Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, ChiSox59 said: Maximize the cap? The Sox could sign both to effective 5 years $250M deals (assuming they take opt out after 5), and still be well below the luxury tax for at least a few seasons. Not luxury tax, but maxing out their operating expense. Sox would never approach the luxury tax line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said: Not luxury tax, but maxing out their operating expense. Sox would never approach the luxury tax line. If the Sox don't approach and then exceed a $150M payroll figure in the coming seasons (yes, I know the luxury tax is around $200M), they're never going to be consistent contenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, ChiSox59 said: If the Sox don't approach and then exceed a $150M payroll figure in the coming seasons (yes, I know the luxury tax is around $200M), they're never going to be consistent contenders. They're not going to approach $150 million if they can't win consistently first. Remember how it worked for the Astros. They were at $100 million when they had their team storm out to the 100 win pace, they added $20 million in Verlander's deal midseason, they then extended Altuve to push up towards $150 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxfrthmmrs Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said: If the Sox don't approach and then exceed a $150M payroll figure in the coming seasons (yes, I know the luxury tax is around $200M), they're never going to be consistent contenders. Harper and MM would cost 50% of that hypothetical $150M. You have 23 other spots to field. This isn't the NBA where you could live and die by your stars. Trying to field a playoff team team with 23 guys at a $75M budget is not realistic. That's why I said it's only sustainable until the young guys get expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: They're not going to approach $150 million if they can't win consistently first. Remember how it worked for the Astros. They were at $100 million when they had their team storm out to the 100 win pace, they added $20 million in Verlander's deal midseason, they then extended Altuve to push up towards $150 million. Why do the Astros have anything to do with our spending potential? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said: Harper and MM would cost 50% of that hypothetical $150M. You have 23 other spots to field. This isn't the NBA where you could live and die by your stars. Trying to field a playoff team team with 23 guys at a $75M budget is not realistic. That's why I said it's only sustainable until the young guys get expensive. Yah, if you sign Harper and MM, you damn well better be prepared to be near the luxury cap in 2023-2025. But its never going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Why do the Astros have anything to do with our spending potential? They are a solid model for how teams that have success are able to raise their payroll due to the success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said: Yah, if you sign Harper and MM, you damn well better be prepared to be near the luxury cap in 2023-2025. But its never going to happen. Worth thinking about - I have no idea what the luxury tax structure will look like after the next MLB bargaining agreement. The Players side is deservedly annoyed with the fact that right now the share of revenues going to the players has declined over time, and they're deservedly annoyed with the setup last year where the market collapsed and left people out in the cold. At the very least, the players are going to push hard to create more space for teams to spend so that their share can at least hold steady rather than declining over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: They are a solid model for how teams that have success are able to raise their payroll due to the success. No offense, but this is just nonsense. Their revenue profile is different, their expense structure is different. There isn’t a one size fits all model for payroll spending. And furthermore, national TV money continues to grow & grow. I’d wager the Sox could support a $125M payroll right now and still make a profit. What the Astros did a few years ago has no bearing on us whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: No offense, but this is just nonsense. Their revenue profile is different, their expense structure is different. There isn’t a one size fits all model for payroll spending. And furthermore, national TV money continues to grow & grow. I’d wager the Sox could support a $125M payroll right now and still make a profit. What the Astros did a few years ago has no bearing on us whatsoever. I think the Sox could support a payroll quite a bit higher than that and still profit, even without considering the additional revenues associated with signing the guys necessary to add $75-100M to the ledger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: No offense, but this is just nonsense. Their revenue profile is different, their expense structure is different. There isn’t a one size fits all model for payroll spending. And furthermore, national TV money continues to grow & grow. I’d wager the Sox could support a $125M payroll right now and still make a profit. What the Astros did a few years ago has no bearing on us whatsoever. So is it your belief that the White Sox would not see additional revenues if they began a season like 2020 on a 100 win pace and that we should expect that limitation to be permanent? Because the Astros could absolutely have afforded a $125 million payroll during their rebuilding years but they didn't commit that until they had a strong enough team. Are you arguing that the idea of revenue growth with wins enabling us to spend more is "nonsense"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: So is it your belief that the White Sox would not see additional revenues if they began a season like 2020 on a 100 win pace and that we should expect that limitation to be permanent? Because the Astros could absolutely have afforded a $125 million payroll during their rebuilding years but they didn't commit that until they had a strong enough team. Are you arguing that the idea of revenue growth with wins enabling us to spend more is "nonsense"? No, I’m arguing with this comment: ”They're not going to approach $150 million if they can't win consistently first.“ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saufley Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: What the heck, just blow him away with an offer!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saufley Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said: Now tell us when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 17 minutes ago, Saufley said: Now tell us when. Doesn't sound like it would be this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t exactly sound like what someone involved with an organization would say right before signing someone: https://mobile.twitter.com/jaysonst/status/1072200489951850496 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.