Eloy officially got paid

[BackDoorBreach]

I'm with most here that this reported deal doesn't really make sense right now.  The math is weird and he hasn't even taken a pitch yet.  

[Insp]

21 hours ago, mqr said:

Honestly, the White Sox not being front and center of a strike again is worth it alone if u ask me. 

What do you mean by that?

[Balta1701]

Now that this has been put out there, I'll be disappointed if it doesn't get done. 

[Moan4Yoan]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No it isn't dick. 

It is not honoring the contract in good faith. As I said, evaluation from organizations is subjective so collusion is hard to prove but it certainly is not written in there the way you are claiming.

They are clearly exploiting the service time rules which is not acting in good faith. The fact that players cant prove intent absolutely doesnt mean the front office is following the rules. 

Funny thing is, if Eloy files a grievance like Kris Bryant, I wonder if they could argue his awful tiny sample size at the plate this spring if he then tears it up at AAA for a couple weeks, lol.  Either way, I’m happy the front office isn’t stupid enough to put him on the opening day roster.  They are stupid enough for many other reasons.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Harper2Sox

[GreenSox]

Seems premature

[Chicago White Sox]

35 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Now that this has been put out there, I'll be disappointed if it doesn't get done. 

Yup, it will be yet another kick to the balls.

[ron883]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The one thing left this organization has been proven to be to be very sharp, ahead of the market, and good at is these extensions. I'll trust that whatever they put together here is a good one as well.

They have never signed an extension like this with a player who has never been in the majors. They did great with these contracts on pitchers (Sale and Q) and an injury prone player (Eaton). All had proven something in the majors but were volatile. 

 

Given how awful the dopes in the FO are at evaluating talent, I'm surprised anybody would give them the benefit of the doubt on this. You supplement the younger and cheap years from your star players with proven veterans who will cost more. Don't sign an unproven commodity to the biggest contract in club history. That's laughable. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by ron883

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

5 minutes ago, ron883 said:

They have never signed an extension like this with a player who has never been in the majors. They did great with these contracts on pitchers (Sale and Q) and an injury prone player (Eaton). All had proven something in the majors but were volatile. 

 

Given how awful the dopes in the FO are at evaluating talent, I'm surprised anybody would give them the benefit of the doubt on this. You supplement the younger and cheap years from your star players with proven veterans who will cost more. Don't sign an unproven commodity to the biggest contract in club history. That's laughable. 

Ron, 200 at bats proves nothing by the way and wouldnt change the statistical projection for eloy. Signing him now or at the all star break is no different.

They bought out arb years and a year of free agency (two for some). It's the same premise.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 minutes ago, ron883 said:

They have never signed an extension like this with a player who has never been in the majors. They did great with these contracts on pitchers (Sale and Q) and an injury prone player (Eaton). All had proven something in the majors but were volatile. 

 

Given how awful the dopes in the FO are at evaluating talent, I'm surprised anybody would give them the benefit of the doubt on this. You supplement the younger and cheap years from your star players with proven veterans who will cost more. Don't sign an unproven commodity to the biggest contract in club history. That's laughable. 

You dont seem to understand. The Sox are trying to control his cost. Theres nothing laughable about it. They clearly project that in their opinion he will be worth more than the contract. It's a gamble but all early contracts are. A gamble the Sox have absolutely dominated since they started doing it.

[ron883]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You dont seem to understand. The Sox are trying to control his cost. Theres nothing laughable about it. They clearly project that in their opinion he will be worth more than the contract. It's a gamble but all early contracts are. A gamble the Sox have absolutely dominated since they started doing it.

You don't seem to understand - he has yet to hit any major league pitching. That Byron Buxton guy tore up AA and AAA at a young age as well. How has that turned out? 

 

The Sox have never gambled like this with a minor leaguer. Quite frankly, most of their decisions regarding minor league players are simply awful. From drafting to development to rushing them up to the majors. They have proven absolutely nothing in regards to handling minor league players. This sounds like a botch job in the making. 

[Orlando]

Has anyone besides Hector picked this up? 

[GreenSox]

22 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

 A gamble the Sox have absolutely dominated since they started doing it.

They did well with the extensions, but never this early.  And their talent evaluation hasn't exactly been sharp the last few years.

But given that we're stuck with this front office in perpetuity, I guess why not.  

[Timmy U]

I like it.  Since, for luxury tax purposes, they take average salary, I say spend as much money in these non-competitive years as possible.  $12.5 million of the deal would count against this year when they have payroll space to burn.

And as far as the "never played in the majors" argument, this is only about double the outlay for Robert, a guy who had never played in the MINORS.  I like paying for young talent instead of, say Nova, Alonso, and Jay.  They're more than $20 million of just dead money.

Also, the Moncada argument doesn't work for me because a) they never offered him anything like this, so maybe they knew he'd struggle at the start b) he probably wouldn't have taken it anyway since he's got $26 million in the bank.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Timmy U said:

I like it.  Since, for luxury tax purposes, they take average salary, I say spend as much money in these non-competitive years as possible.  $12.5 million of the deal would count against this year when they have payroll space to burn.

And as far as the "never played in the majors" argument, this is only about double the outlay for Robert, a guy who had never played in the MINORS.  I like paying for young talent instead of, say Nova, Alonso, and Jay.  They're more than $20 million of just dead money.

Also, the Moncada argument doesn't work for me because a) they never offered him anything like this, so maybe they knew he'd struggle at the start b) he probably wouldn't have taken it anyway since he's got $26 million in the bank.

If you consider the penalty money in the equation when you talk about Robert, there is about a 98% chance that the guaranteed money of an Eloy deal will be less than that.  Robert was MUCH further away from the majors too, and all it gave us was control. 

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you consider the penalty money in the equation when you talk about Robert, there is about a 98% chance that the guaranteed money of an Eloy deal will be less than that.  Robert was MUCH further away from the majors too, and all it gave us was control. 

Entirely different bidding circumstances and Lat Am signing pool consequences for a player at Robert's age.

[Timmy U]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Entirely different bidding circumstances and Lat Am signing pool consequences for a player at Robert's age.

Robert cost something like $46 million, half of which had to be paid upfront, at age 20.  Jimenez would cost $100 million spread out over 8 years at age 22.  Jimenez counts $12.5 million against a $200 million luxury tax cap.  The money spent on Robert obliterated their pool and meant he would be the only significant LatAm pool signing for three years.  Yeah, they’re different:  the Robert signing is waaaay riskier.  If Jimenez busts, all you’re out is money.

Now, I get what you’re saying re: bidding.  Other teams were vying for Robert’s services, whereas The Sox imagine the market for Jimenez will be higher in the out years and are trying to lock in cost certainty.  I suppose it all comes down to projection.  I agree with the Sox that he’s going to be good and that the benefits of cost certainty, luxury tax flexibility, and the extra control outweigh the monetary risk.  You disagree.  We’ll see, won’t we?  Philosophically, they’re not crazy.

 

[Chicago White Sox]

6 hours ago, Timmy U said:

I like it.  Since, for luxury tax purposes, they take average salary, I say spend as much money in these non-competitive years as possible.  $12.5 million of the deal would count against this year when they have payroll space to burn.

And as far as the "never played in the majors" argument, this is only about double the outlay for Robert, a guy who had never played in the MINORS.  I like paying for young talent instead of, say Nova, Alonso, and Jay.  They're more than $20 million of just dead money.

Also, the Moncada argument doesn't work for me because a) they never offered him anything like this, so maybe they knew he'd struggle at the start b) he probably wouldn't have taken it anyway since he's got $26 million in the bank.

The luxury tax implications don’t matter here because we won’t be going above $200M in payroll while Reinsdorf is still alive.  Also, front-loading a contract never makes sense due to the time value of money.  We’d be better off taking any excess cash, investing it at some rate of return, and effectively paying less in the future.

[Chicago White Sox]

I do kind of worry the Sox offer some ridiculous contract here to help dispose the “the Sox are cheap” notion after the whole Machado fiasco.  The $100M figure does seem a bit too high for one additional year of control (unless they’re aware of upcoming CBA changes) and way too convenient for Hahn to say “look, we said the money will be spent, here’s our first nine figure contract”.

[Balta1701]

25 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I do kind of worry the Sox offer some ridiculous contract here to help dispose the “the Sox are cheap” notion after the whole Machado fiasco.  The $100M figure does seem a bit too high for one additional year of control (unless they’re aware of upcoming CBA changes) and way too convenient for Hahn to say “look, we said the money will be spent, here’s our first nine figure contract”.

They've got to have several option years in there for this to make any sense. 

[Timmy U]

33 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The luxury tax implications don’t matter here because we won’t be going above $200M in payroll while Reinsdorf is still alive.  Also, front-loading a contract never makes sense due to the time value of money.  We’d be better off taking any excess cash, investing it at some rate of return, and effectively paying less in the future.

Ah, but here’s the beauty:  For luxury tax purposes he counts $12.5 million because that’s the average, but the Sox won’t actually have to pay him $12.5 million.  It is not a front-loaded contract.  

Think of this like commodity trading.  The Sox are buying $100 million worth of 2026 Eloy futures.  They bet by the end of the contract, that will be worth like $150 million.  And, they get to pay on the installment plan with big balloon payments near the end. Future value of money works in their favor here.

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

They've got to have several option years in there for this to make any sense. 

Yeah, I think you need two option years.  I’m hoping Hector misunderstood and the extension is for the eight years following this season.  Something like the following structure would be worthwhile for the Sox:

• 2019: $500K (current deal)
• 2020: $1.5M
• 2021: $3.0M
• 2022: $8.0M
• 2023: $10.0M
• 2024: $13.0M
• 2025: $17.0M
• 2026: $21.0M (club option)
• 2027: $26.0M (club option)

The guaranteed money shakes out to be ~$53M over the seven years of control we already have him for (~2x the guarantee Tim got), but comes with comes with two not-cheap club options that allow us to control him through his age 30 season.  

Honestly, if it’s not something like the above and we only get one option, I’ll go on record and say it is too player friendly.  I get how valuable even one option year is, but we’re practically assuming he’s Kris Bryant otherwise and given Eloy’s defensive limitations that seems a bit silly.  I wouldn’t be outraged by it, but it would support the idea our front office is not very good or is operating with another agenda in mind.

[Dick Allen]

22 minutes ago, Timmy U said:

Ah, but here’s the beauty:  For luxury tax purposes he counts $12.5 million because that’s the average, but the Sox won’t actually have to pay him $12.5 million.  It is not a front-loaded contract.  

Think of this like commodity trading.  The Sox are buying $100 million worth of 2026 Eloy futures.  They bet by the end of the contract, that will be worth like $150 million.  And, they get to pay on the installment plan with big balloon payments near the end. Future value of money works in their favor here.

Luxury tax. White Sox. Seriously?

[Chicago White Sox]

24 minutes ago, Timmy U said:

Ah, but here’s the beauty:  For luxury tax purposes he counts $12.5 million because that’s the average, but the Sox won’t actually have to pay him $12.5 million.  It is not a front-loaded contract.  

Think of this like commodity trading.  The Sox are buying $100 million worth of 2026 Eloy futures.  They bet by the end of the contract, that will be worth like $150 million.  And, they get to pay on the installment plan with big balloon payments near the end. Future value of money works in their favor here.

I’m not sure I’m following here, but the luxury tax implications only matter to us in the event we decide to trade Eloy to a tax paying team (which suggests things have gone wrong).  We ourselves will never be tax payers under Reinsdorf and will be unable to take advantage of his salary being higher than his AAV during our competitive window.

[southsider2k5]

6 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Entirely different bidding circumstances and Lat Am signing pool consequences for a player at Robert's age.

Sure. The Jimenez money is spread out over 6 to 8 years. Robert was 2.

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Sure. The Jimenez money is spread out over 6 to 8 years. Robert was 2.

Why so much money if Jimenez’s fWAR is always going to be limited to the 3.5-4.5 range but Machado could easily come close to doubling that production and is a completely proven commodity?