Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Yep huge national brand vs an irrelevant franchise. Hell, Sox don’t even have anyone popular enough to use in the Buona Beef commercials, as they have to use Frank.

That is entirely due to us not having a star and nothing to do with the underlying uniform.  And maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t see a ton of national marketing campaigns involving Cubs players.

[Sockin]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

That is entirely due to us not having a star and nothing to do with the underlying uniform.  And maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t see a ton of national marketing campaigns involving Cubs players.

Kris Bryant is Adidas baseball's marketing partner.

[Vote4Pedro]

12 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

For national endorsements?  Will the team he’s on really make that much of a difference?  Bryce Harper is Bryce Harper and already a proven commodity in terms of marketability.  I guess I wouldn’t think the difference in earning power would be that significant between the Cubs & Sox.

It doesn’t take much to put two and two together on what a company would like as their spokesman, someone who is nationally known and one of the faces of one of the most historic franchises in baseball or someone from that other team in Chicago. The endorsement have as much to do with the Jersey they play for as it does the individual. Therefore, a company is more than likely to bring you in if you can essentially sell the product to the fan base it plays for.....big difference in national appeal. We get forgotten about in our own sport, let alone other companies that have zero to do with baseball. 

[Chicago White Sox]

6 minutes ago, Sockin said:

Kris Bryant is Adidas baseball's marketing partner.

Ok, but he’s also the 2016 NL MVP.  I think his Adidas contract has more to do with his superstar abilities & than playing for the Cubs.  Local endorsements are different story obviously.

[KnightsOnMintSt]

1 hour ago, Whitesox27 said:

Why? Happ and Contreras aren't even that good.

It doesn't have to be those 2 necessarily. The Cubs have a lot of good young pieces, and throwing in one or two of them should sweeten the pot for most teams. It just a matter of how willing the Cubs are to include certain players. 

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

It doesn’t take much to put two and two together on what a company would like as their spokesman, someone who is nationally known and one of the faces of one of the most historic franchises in baseball or someone from that other team in Chicago. The endorsement have as much to do with the Jersey they play for as it does the individual. Therefore, a company is more than likely to bring you in if you can essentially sell the product to the fan base it plays for.....big difference in national appeal. We get forgotten about in our own sport, let alone other companies that have zero to do with baseball. 

Agree to disagree on this.  Why in the world would someone in New York care that Kris Bryant plays for the Cubs when purchasing a pair of shoes?  And if you’re theory is true, why did Bryce Harper sign one of the largest deals in baseball with Under Amour when he plays for the Nationals?  They aren’t exactly a storied franchise.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, KnightsOnMintSt said:

It doesn't have to be those 2 necessarily. The Cubs have a lot of good young pieces, and throwing in one or two of them should sweeten the pot for most teams. It just a matter of how willing the Cubs are to include certain players. 

The question is how does that make them better?  Trading their depth to unload Heyward to then pay Harper $40M per year seems like a net decrease in the grand scheme of things, especially when they have one of the worst farm systems in all of baseball.

[Flash]

2 minutes ago, KnightsOnMintSt said:

It doesn't have to be those 2 necessarily. The Cubs have a lot of good young pieces, and throwing in one or two of them should sweeten the pot for most teams. It just a matter of how willing the Cubs are to include certain players. 

White Sox might want to capitulate Harper to the Cubs and be opportunistic in helping them clear space. What about Chatwood, Montgomery and Nico Hoerner to Sox for Castillo and Nate Jones?

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

White Sox might want to capitulate Harper to the Cubs and be opportunistic in helping them clear space. What about Chatwood, Montgomery and Nico Hoerner to Sox for Castillo and Nate Jones?

I think I’ve asked you this before, but are you Theo Epstein?  Why in the world would the Sox want to “capitulate” Harper to the Cubs?  Like you keep pushing this angle and it’s just an absolutely terrible idea and then you support it with horrible trade proposals for the Sox.  If you’re not Theo then you must be Jed, because I can’t for life of me figure out why you want to help the Cubs so badly while at the same time making us an even bigger joke.

[Ross Gload Fan]

8 minutes ago, Flash said:

White Sox might want to capitulate Harper to the Cubs and be opportunistic in helping them clear space. What about Chatwood, Montgomery and Nico Hoerner to Sox for Castillo and Nate Jones?

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[almagest]

16 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The question is how does that make them better?  Trading their depth to unload Heyward to then pay Harper $40M per year seems like a net decrease in the grand scheme of things, especially when they have one of the worst farm systems in all of baseball.

I've been saying this for a while. It doesn't make sense to trade talent from the MLB roster or finish gutting their already weak MiLB system just to sign Harper who may not match the level of production they'd be trading away and will probably leave when Bryant leaves anyway because I don't see how they can afford both of them while still remaining competitive (ie paying Rizzo, Baez, Q, Hendricks, etc.)

That's not to say the Cubs aren't trying to do this, but I can't imagine they're going to be successful. And if somehow they manage to swing this I don't see that team being any better than they are right now.

Edited December 31, 2018 by almagest

[Flash]

13 minutes ago, Flash said:

White Sox might want to capitulate Harper to the Cubs and be opportunistic in helping them clear space. What about Chatwood, Montgomery and Nico Hoerner to Sox for Castillo and Nate Jones?

If Harper to Cubs (or anyone other than Sox) is a foregone conclusion, why not try to improve by adding a couple of pitchers who might be rotation pieces for a couple of years plus add a strong middle IF to the ranks. Cubs need relief help and a seasoned catcher to backup Contreres. Then, Sox can sign Grandal. They would be much stronger going into 2019 and beyond.

[Vote4Pedro]

15 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Agree to disagree on this.  Why in the world would someone in New York care that Kris Bryant plays for the Cubs when purchasing a pair of shoes?  And if you’re theory is true, why did Bryce Harper sign one of the largest deals in baseball with Under Amour when he plays for the Nationals?  They aren’t exactly a storied franchise.

Dude, we LITERALLY just witnessed this scenario play out 6 months ago with Lebron James, the most recognized basketball player in the NBA today. He went to LA not because he had a better chance to win but because it was best for his brand i.e. endorsements etc, and oh by the way Boras has already called Harper the Lebron of MLB. So once again, is your brand bigger on arguably one the most recognized sports franchises in the world, let alone MLB or with a team that is only second best in the same city?

[iamshack]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

Or he’s 26 years old and only been in the league for 3 years, had a down power year along with the rest of his team (who fired their hitting coach that had the same issue in Boston) and plays a premier position in baseball. 

This would be quite the inopportune time to move Willson Contreras. 

[iamshack]

17 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

Dude, we LITERALLY just witnessed this scenario play out 6 months ago with Lebron James, the most recognized basketball player in the NBA today. He went to LA not because he had a better chance to win but because it was best for his brand i.e. endorsements etc, and oh by the way Boras has already called Harper the Lebron of MLB. So once again, is your brand bigger on arguably one the most recognized sports franchises in the world, let alone MLB or with a team that is only second best in the same city?

Yeah, I agree with you here, and it is definitely something that Harper and his camp are looking at. 

Just look at Mike Trout.

That being said, I don’t see Boras and Harper signing a contract that’s significantly under market because of the marketing opportunities off the field. 

[SonofaRoache]

19 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

Dude, we LITERALLY just witnessed this scenario play out 6 months ago with Lebron James, the most recognized basketball player in the NBA today. He went to LA not because he had a better chance to win but because it was best for his brand i.e. endorsements etc, and oh by the way Boras has already called Harper the Lebron of MLB. So once again, is your brand bigger on arguably one the most recognized sports franchises in the world, let alone MLB or with a team that is only second best in the same city?

The difference is NBA teams can't overpay. They all can offer the same amount. Brand won't mean much to Boras if we pay up. 

[Chicago White Sox]

18 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

Dude, we LITERALLY just witnessed this scenario play out 6 months ago with Lebron James, the most recognized basketball player in the NBA today. He went to LA not because he had a better chance to win but because it was best for his brand i.e. endorsements etc, and oh by the way Boras has already called Harper the Lebron of MLB. So once again, is your brand bigger on arguably one the most recognized sports franchises in the world, let alone MLB or with a team that is only second best in the same city?

You can not compare the NBA & MLB when it comes to endorsement opportunities & potential as they are completely different monsters.  NBA stars make significantly more money from endorsements than MLB stars.  Additionally, Lebron wanted to be in L.A. for reasons beyond just wearing a Lakers jersey.  

And I’m not suggesting there would no impact from being in New York or LA, I’m just saying it wouldn’t be material for baseball players.  Kris Bryant makes roughly $1M/year from his Adidas deal.  How much more would he realistically make playing for the Dodgers or Yankees or less playing for the Sox?  Again, it’s just not a ton of money we’re talking bout here.

[Vote4Pedro]

1 minute ago, iamshack said:

Yeah, I agree with you here, and it is definitely something that Harper and his camp are looking at. 

Just look at Mike Trout.

That being said, I don’t see Boras and Harper signing a contract that’s significantly under market because of the marketing opportunities off the field. 

No I don’t think they would sign something significantly under market either, but what I was saying is if the contracts are relatively similar we don’t stand a chance. 

[pcq]

1 hour ago, beckham15 said:

I think people are underestimating the bigger picture for Harper.  If the contracts sizes are anywhere close to one another (Sox, Cubs, and Nationals) Marketing alone, maybe not in Chicago it might not be a big difference opportunity wise but nationwide it will easily make up the difference in contract size by signing with the Cubs. Unlike the White Sox, the Cubs are set up to win now and have his best friend there on the roster.

I can tell you the Cubs get a lot more clicks than the Sox which would fall under marketing. 

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

No I don’t think they would sign something significantly under market either, but what I was saying is if the contracts are relatively similar we don’t stand a chance. 

Well that I can agree with, but that also applies the “win now” aspect those teams provide as well.  Regardless, we can’t allow the money to be similar if we want to land these guys.

[iamshack]

1 minute ago, beckham15 said:

No I don’t think they would sign something significantly under market either, but what I was saying is if the contracts are relatively similar we don’t stand a chance. 

You can never say never with no true salary cap, but I would be shocked if the Cubs would put together something that is in the ballpark of where the Sox offer is. 

Can they do it? Sure. But would it be a net gain for them? I think Theo/Jed are smarter than that.

The Cubs will benefit almost zero in regards to television ratings or at the gate from adding Harper. The benefits to them are pretty much entirely related to his on-field performance. That makes it very unlikely that they would be able to make a series of transactions, given their current state, which would seem to improve their ability to compete for a championship in the near future. 

[Vote4Pedro]

1 minute ago, iamshack said:

You can never say never with no true salary cap, but I would be shocked if the Cubs would put together something that is in the ballpark of where the Sox offer is. 

Can they do it? Sure. But would it be a net gain for them? I think Theo/Jed are smarter than that.

The Cubs will benefit almost zero in regards to television ratings or at the gate from adding Harper. The benefits to them are pretty much entirely related to his on-field performance. That makes it very unlikely that they would be able to make a series of transactions, given their current state, which would seem to improve their ability to compete for a championship in the near future. 

My question would be and this is my biggest concern about the Cubs sweeping him out from under us is.....would Harper agree to a backloaded contract though to give the Cubs flexibility to make the signing a possibility with opts outs starting say 3 years down the road so he can win now, play awhile with Bryant and still collect his big pay day at age 29-30 after trout re ups.

[iamshack]

4 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

My question would be and this is my biggest concern about the Cubs sweeping him out from under us is.....would Harper agree to a backloaded contract though to give the Cubs flexibility to make the signing a possibility with opts outs starting say 3 years down the road so he can win now, play awhile with Bryant and still collect his big pay day at age 29-30 after trout re ups.

That doesn’t help them from a tax perspective. 

[KnightsOnMintSt]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The question is how does that make them better?  Trading their depth to unload Heyward to then pay Harper $40M per year seems like a net decrease in the grand scheme of things, especially when they have one of the worst farm systems in all of baseball.

I guess they would do it if they consider Harper a considerable asset to their team on and off the field.

[Chicago White Sox]

31 minutes ago, beckham15 said:

My question would be and this is my biggest concern about the Cubs sweeping him out from under us is.....would Harper agree to a backloaded contract though to give the Cubs flexibility to make the signing a possibility with opts outs starting say 3 years down the road so he can win now, play awhile with Bryant and still collect his big pay day at age 29-30 after trout re ups.

If he’s planning to opt-out after so many years, he’ll likely want a front-loaded contract.  And like Shack said, back-loading doesn’t help the Cubs from a luxury tax perspective.  They really need to move a bad contract or two to make the financials work.