Panerista Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Rowand44 said: No, no they have not. I've said before that I basically don't believe anything that has been reported but guys absolutely don't believe shit from Bruce. I'll take Passan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 It’s also in the best interest of the Sox and Phillies to drive the cost up of Manny to try and make it impossible for the one of them to sign both big guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxBlanco Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: If the offer is 7/220, he's not signing it until March 14th. (I hope there are other nerdy people who get this joke) Pi Day! (with 22/7 being a close approximation to pi) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqr Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 1 minute ago, fathom said: It’s also in the best interest of the Sox and Phillies to drive the cost up of Manny to try and make it impossible for the one of them to sign both big guys. I think that's a problem for once the other signs, and the team turns around puts an offer for the second. They're not going to drive up the price just for s's and g's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 20 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Imagine the scenario where the White Sox go into this offseason thinking that because they have Kopech they have a much stronger rotation this year. Maybe they still trade for Nova to cover innings at the back end, but now they're thinking that Kopech is going to lead that rotation and then they sign Machado and think they're right there with the Indians...and then Kopech's arm goes out in April or May. Now he's rehabbing until the middle part of 2020, all the beautiful plans to have a solid rotation in 2019 implode, and we still waste a year of control. You could have timed it better if you knew it was coming, but you could also have timed it worse. Also this. As of today, he is only missing 2019, and will probably have a full winter and spring to go back into game shape. Maybe he even makes it to fall league. If he does this in late March, it destroys all of 2019. It also means no chance at fall league, winter ball, or anything else like this. On a less conservative side, it would also take out his spring training, pushing his return into May or June. On a worse side scenario he could miss all of 2019 AND a decent amount of 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saufley Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said: To me, this all seems, logically, as if it’s going according to plan. I’m not worried about these “low” leading offers because: 1. The White Sox, unlike the other known suitors, have absolutely no time constraint, because they don’t have to pivot to compete if they miss out. They’re the only ones that would be totally fine waiting all the way to ST if that’s what it took, therefore 2. I’m reading this as The White Sox are playing it slow to avoid bidding against themselves. The state of their current offer doesn’t necessarily indicate the highest they’d be willing to go. This isn’t evidence that they’re playing it smart, but if they WERE playing it smart, this is what it would look like. The risk is if the Sox play too hard, Machado at some point considers one year pillows before he finds out the Sox would meet his minimum anyway. But I’d have to assume that both sides are keeping communication open enough to avoid that, given that it benefits both of them. you said "waiting all the way to ST". My heart stopped. One can only imagine what this board would look like if that would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 46 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: I disagree. Youre only risking credibility. The problem is that credibility doesnt really matter if your at the Boras level of agent. We already know that Boras did something similar to the Rangers when they signed A-Rod. These posts are too literal. The agents arent going to say "Oh we have an offer of XYZ". They are going to say "We have other offers, if you want to sign our client you need to offer X." Check your ethical rules. This is from Wisconsin ethical rules and it's the same in New York: SCR 20:4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others. (a) In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of a material fact or law to a 3rd person. None of this matters because agents aren't acting in roles as legal counsel. They are advisors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Lmao 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, G&T said: Check your ethical rules. This is from Wisconsin ethical rules and it's the same in New York: SCR 20:4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others. (a) In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of a material fact or law to a 3rd person. None of this matters because agents aren't acting in roles as legal counsel. They are advisors. I already posted model 4.1 earlier. And I said how they would get around it. (edit from my previous post) I dont think they are acting in the capacity of lawyers in these discussions so its questionable as to whether ABA rule 4.1 applies. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/ Also Im not sure that someone is going to file an ethical complaint even if it was technically a violation. That being said. I can easily just change the words to get around the problem. I say "other teams are interested." Not to mention, it wouldnt be a great tactic to specifically state what the other team was involved as a bluff. And it really hasnt hurt Boras that much. The teams who spend the most money are willing to play ball with him. They understand the game that is being played. Edited January 14, 2019 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo8 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, aeichhor said: Good stuff from here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Whitesox27 said: Lmao The guy isn't here any more, why are we posting his tweets and making fun of him in a Machado thread? Give me a break. This doesn't help with board quality. 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Irritating me today: We're going to get Manny for 7yr/220M but it's going to be 3 yrs team control. So the domino effect is going to be we become a win-now window immediately and we trade Micker+Rutherford for a god forsaken #2 starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Orlando said: The guy isn't here any more, why are we posting his tweets and making fun of him in a Machado thread? Give me a break. This doesn't help with board quality. Accurate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: I already posted model 4.1 earlier. And I said how they would get around it. (edit from my previous post) I dont think they are acting in the capacity of lawyers in these discussions so its questionable as to whether ABA rule 4.1 applies. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/ Also Im not sure that someone is going to file an ethical complaint even if it was technically a violation. That being said. I can easily just change the words to get around the problem. I say "other teams are interested." Not to mention, it wouldnt be a great tactic to specifically state what the other team was involved as a bluff. And it really hasnt hurt Boras that much. The teams who spend the most money are willing to play ball with him. They understand the game that is being played. Woops. I was off doing actual work, which was dumb. As I said, you can engage in puffery which is easy in these circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, Saufley said: you said "waiting all the way to ST". My heart stopped. One can only imagine what this board would look like if that would happen. Oh it would be downright miserable, no doubt. But if that’s what it takes to ensure that every other bidder jumps ship. I’ll suck it up. We know this FO is far from flawless, but one thing that we seem to have good evidence for is that Hahn is cold af as a negotiator. What was once a disadvantage (Sox have no leverage to push an early decision, because everyone knows they aren’t actually going to take an offer off the table) could now be becoming an advantage as the deadline of ST comes closer and everyone else moves on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 22 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Its just a bad year to be looking for a huge contract. A lot of the big time teams arent out there. But that doesnt mean they wont be next year. Feels like we've been saying this for 3 straight years. A bunch of teams re-set their luxury tax for this year and salaries had been cleared for this free agent period. i don't know that it will be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Its quite obvious Hahn hasn't read Trumps 'The Art of the Deal' or Manny would have been sewed up ages ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centerfieldsixers Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, Princess Dye said: Irritating me today: We're going to get Manny for 7yr/220M but it's going to be 3 yrs team control. So the domino effect is going to be we become a win-now window immediately and we trade Micker+Rutherford for a god forsaken #2 starter. We will not get a number 2 for adolfo and rutherford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panerista Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, Princess Dye said: Irritating me today: We're going to get Manny for 7yr/220M but it's going to be 3 yrs team control. So the domino effect is going to be we become a win-now window immediately and we trade Micker+Rutherford for a god forsaken #2 starter. That would be "so White Sox" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqr Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Princess Dye said: Irritating me today: We're going to get Manny for 7yr/220M but it's going to be 3 yrs team control. So the domino effect is going to be we become a win-now window immediately and we trade Micker+Rutherford for a god forsaken #2 starter. That'll put him hitting Free Agency at a time where everyone thinks there is going to be a strike. Does a 30 y/o Manny get a 4 year $120 million+ contract? Edited January 14, 2019 by mqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Thatd be awesome if we could get a 2 starter for Rutherford and Micker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 39 minutes ago, toasty said: If he was shut down after the milb season, or at most on a off season throwing schedule, it's likely it wouldn't have happened. Would it have happened later? Maybe but then we wouldn't have lost a year of control. I don't agree. He was barely at his innings limit from the previous year. ALL teams will push to get their pitchers near 180-200 innings. If he can't do that, he isn't worth being a starting pitcher anyway. Pitchers get hurt no matter how hard we try to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Princess Dye said: Irritating me today: We're going to get Manny for 7yr/220M but it's going to be 3 yrs team control. So the domino effect is going to be we become a win-now window immediately and we trade Micker+Rutherford for a god forsaken #2 starter. I'd make a trade headlined by Rutherford for a SP now if we landed MM. But man, I really want to hang onto Micker. I just have this feeling he is going to turn into a monster down the line. But I would do a Rutherford, Walker, Lambert type deal for a SP - not sure how far that would get us though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 27 minutes ago, centerfieldsixers said: the highs and lows of this thread is becoming comical eh, despite rhetoric I'd guess most in this thread feel better than they ever have about signing machado and are just annoyed at process. 1 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.