Scholarship table
The Sox have a lot of money to offer. Great players sign with bad teams all the time. Lester to the cubs.Cano to the M'sArod to the Rangers. All these teams were at least 20 games under the season before signing those guys.Obviously the odds are against it happening, but if they offer the most money, it likely won't matter. Also they have been connected to Nelson Cruz and Patrick Corbin. They could add 80 million to their payroll this offseason and be about average.Honestly, I'm thrilled they are pursuing him like this whether they end up getting him or not. I like the front office being aggressive.And nice use of Jordan as apparently the Jordan statue was donning a Harper jersey today.
All the time? Lester clearly had a connection to Epstein and Hoyer that had a big impact there. How did the Cano and ARod deals work out for Seattle and Texas? Granted, Harper is different due to his age.
Barry Bonds to the Giants (72-win team previous season)Randy Johnson to the D-Backs (65 wins)Carlos Beltran to the Mets (76 wins)Roger Clemens to the Blue Jays (76 wins)I also doubt Harper ends up on the South Side, but it won't be because they had a bad record last year.
Again, that's not "all the time". It's the exception more than the rule.
Those are some of the biggest contracts in history. Two of the deals I mentioned are 2 of the biggest 3 deals in the history of baseball. Many of the top deals are like this, most of the others are others are to the Yankees.No it doesn't happen all the time, because contracts like those don't happen all the time. But I suppose you knew what I meant and are just being intentionally obtuse. What does happen all the time, is that guys sign where they are offered the most money. I imagine that will be the biggest factor for both Harper and Machado. And Corbin. And Cruz. And Grandal. And Pollock. And McCutcheon. And just about every other free agent.
I hope the Cubs and the Sox pass on Harper. He's not worth it. I'd pay $400 million over 10 years for Trout.Harper has played 7 full seasons at this point. He's a 3-5 win player (outside of 2015). In 7 years, Trout has been 9+ WAR except for one year at 8.3 and last year's 7 win season due to injury. The Stanton contract is a realistic comp for Harper.
If you want Scott Boras for an agent you have to go to the highest bidder - that's how he rolls.
Those are some of the biggest contracts in history. Two of the deals I mentioned are 2 of the biggest 3 deals in the history of baseball (and Lester is top 10 ever for a pitcher). Many of the top deals are like this, most of the others are others are to the Yankees.No it doesn't happen all the time, because contracts like those don't happen all the time. But I suppose you knew what I meant and are just being intentionally obtuse. What does happen all the time, is that guys sign where they are offered the most money. I imagine that will be the biggest factor for both Harper and Machado. And Corbin. And Cruz. And Grandal. And Pollock. And McCutcheon. And just about every other free agent.
If you didn't mean "all the time" you should have said something else. Lester didn't take the biggest deal. Heyward didn't take his biggest offer (wish he would have in hindsight). It's unusual but it happens. Yes, free agents often take the biggest deal. How much more are the Sox going to have to offer than the next biggest competitor for Machado or Harper to take a massive leap of faith?
I mean, you're right. But when the biggest knock on Harper is that he isn't Trout, well that alone speaks pretty highly of him. The other obvious problem with you statement, is well, the Sox can't sign Trout. For any amount right now. They could theoretically sign Harper. He is also, again, theoretically, just entering his prime.The problem with the Stanton contract being comparable is the simple fact that Stanton was not a free agent. His was signed as an extension, with out competition factoring into the contract. So just with that, it is a different situation. In his 10 most comparable hitters by age, are names like Griffey Jr., Frank Robinson, Mike Trout, Eddie Mathews, Miguel Cabrera and Tony Conigliaro. That's 5 Hall of Famers ( 2 future, but basically sure things, and top caliber HOF-ers at that), and a career tragically cut short. Others on the list include Andruw Jones and Justin Upton. Even with that, it is almost certain the team that signs Harper will overpay for him. Where the Sox are right, now, I'm ok with that. I think they should front load a deal because they have basically no commitments on the books right now. Front load it so in years 7-8-9 and however long after you aren't in a Pujols situation. Front load it to make it more attractive. That is a card the Sox can play that other franchises may not be able to match.
Guilty of saying the quiet parts out loud. Not everyone in MLB management thinks this way, but I'd bet that there are more that think the MLB is a machine that will survive whatever labor issues they face. As other labor stoppages in sports have shown, he's wrong.
He's 100% correct. The game will go on regardless. If all of these players quit, there would still be interest in the game, kids would still play it and the game would be as good as ever shortly (though probably closer to 7 or 8 years than 3). Players come and go but the game goes on.
To be honest, I don't think baseball players draw people in like they used to. I think that's why the national numbers are way down. Before he was traded to Milwaukee last year, Christian Yelich could have walked into my house and sat on my couch and I would have had no idea who he was. I knew the name, but don't recall ever seeing him play.NBA Basketball is still very much a player-driven sport. But I think outside of a few outliers, baseball, football and college basketball have become much more about the teams than the players. Unplug one...plug in another...life goes on.So while I don't think James is "100% correct," I think he is about 90%.
Doesn't help that baseball does a sh!it job of marketing its one generational player and the best he can do/wants to do is market for Subway.
Rumors abound that the Cubs are not only open to trading Bryant, but are "making an effort" to trade him.My first thought here is that his shoulder must be a problem, I just don't understand why else they would shop him.The initial report I saw I didn't mention because it was just a "there are not untouchables" deal, which doesn't mean much, but since there have been some report that it may be more than that. I can't see it happening. Who knows though.
To be honest, I don't think baseball players draw people in like they used to. I think that's why the national numbers are way down.
So while I don't think James is "100% correct," I think he is about 90%.
They know it's a long shot to re-sign him eventually. Rumors have been out there for a while that he's always been pissed about the service time issue, and he was going to 100% test the market when the time comes. Shoulder is probably an issue, but I'm personally not surprised by this news.I can see the Cubs and Mets being trading partners here.