Jump to content

Machado: Update - Manny, do you officially like us?


Chicago White Sox

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, fathom said:

Interesting that Guff retweeted this also.  Wonder if he's suggesting the Sox 10 year offer was to get other teams to go higher.

 

Eh, just shake a magic 8 ball.  Nobody has any idea what info is disinfo and what isn't.  Without knowing it's impossible to make any determinations.

Also, responding to embedded tweets isn't ideal.   Not much formatting room available in the GUI.

Edited by chitownsportsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony said:

And shit can change real fast when things get the final conversations. All it takes is one person to blow things up or close a deal.

It's all fluff until we hear real deal numbers directly from the source. 

Without knowing anything about the specifics I'd say that any report of "club ___ is taking a hard stance on [years] [salary]" is usually BS.  You always leave things open to a counter offer, that's negotiations 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

That would be awful.  Not even worth it. 

I agree and if that were the case, the Sox should be begging for an opt out clause, and then praying that someone offers even more after 5 years. $50 Million for his age 32 and 33 years would be imprudent, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

Yes, because the years provide them with their protection/insurance in case they are injured, their play turns sour, etc.

Edited by GreenSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

As I said several pages back, baseball has not been kind to aging free agents. Going back to free agency at age 31-33 for a 3 year deal may not get them the total dollars that they can get today on a 10 year deal, even if they do perform at a high level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

Edited by fathom
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fathom said:

I never got the angle that the Sox have to offer the most years.  Given their payroll flexibility, a huge front loaded deal always made more sense.  If Harper or Manny can get the same overall total for 7 years that they might have for 10, then why not do that?  

No reason not to -- it's a better deal as you get your money quicker.  That said. 7/$300 is nearly $43 mill per year....quite the price.
I could dig a couple of 5/$200s, no opt outs.  Gives the Sox a 5 year window of winning with them.

Edited by GreenSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

It's not insane, it's just setting the price record and market too high for no reason. Might as well do 8 years and $300mm. Still breaking records. No reason to outbid yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

I also don't understand why people feel 300 over 10 years is reasonable when 300 over 6 is insane. Though it may poison pill trade talks if things go wrong.

edit: and i say this because, come on, we won't really be that upset to miss out on years 33-37. 

Because when you are talking about $30 million a year versus $50 million a year, that is an extra $20 million a year that can't be spent.  Even if you think the Sox are a $200 million payroll franchise in the future, that is 10% of your payroll EXTRA that is tied up in one player that can't be used.  A $20 million payroll slot can get you a pretty good player.  While they might be able to absorb it early, it would come back to haunt you in the later years of that deal right when your younger players are hitting their primes and getting expensive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Because when you are talking about $30 million a year versus $50 million a year, that is an extra $20 million a year that can't be spent.  Even if you think the Sox are a $200 million payroll franchise in the future, that is 10% of your payroll EXTRA that is tied up in one player that can't be used.  A $20 million payroll slot can get you a pretty good player.  While they might be able to absorb it early, it would come back to haunt you in the later years of that deal right when your younger players are hitting their primes and getting expensive.

But it just happens to align with the surge of cost controlled talent during that same period. Those years at the end were the ones most likely to be killed by this contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

No reason not to -- it's a better deal as you get your money quicker.  That said. 7/$300 is nearly $43 mill per year....quite the price.
I could dig a couple of 5/$200s, no opt outs.  Gives the Sox a 5 year window of winning with them.

So great, be smart, up it to 10-$330, you’ve increased the overal total with a very small hit to your future payroll and it’s like you’ve gotten them to defer money a couple years, or you’ve pushed more money past the opt out, plus you’ve made it so the luxury tax hit is smaller which would make his contract easier to trade. All good things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Really does it matter if it's 5 years, 7 years or 12 years? It's going to be all about the 3 year or 4 year opt out and front loading the contract. Harper and Boras want a record breaking number for optics, but he'll opt out at 29 or 30 and try again for another front loaded contract. My guess at least.

Yes, I think it matters whether it is 5 or 10 years. What if they completely fall off or suffer a career changing injury? They'll want those extra years at the end of the contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So great, be smart, up it to 10-$330, you’ve increased the overal total with a very small hit to your future payroll and it’s like you’ve gotten them to defer money a couple years, or you’ve pushed more money past the opt out, plus you’ve made it so the luxury tax hit is smaller which would make his contract easier to trade. All good things.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but at a 3% interest rate (pretty conservative)  7/300 is about the same total money as 10/330.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...