At some point his arm will blow out, will miss a bunch of time and he will likely age pretty poorly at the back end of the deal. That's what the vast majority of pitchers do post-30 now that we can't use steroids, right? I don't think that's controversial to say.
This is a 2016 short-term move. It's hard to see this being nothing but good for 2016 and it ain't my money. These big/long deals are bad values in general. Hard to see Price being the exception.
So, long term bad. They will have to focus on long term prospect outlook to ensure slack can be picked up from dead budget in the back end. Short term this gets the Red Sox back on the map. IMO hiring DD was a little overrated. A couple very simple common sense moves (throwing money being the main weapon of choice) is all the team really needed. He's as good as anyone to execute it and targeted elite talent, which is wise, but ultimately the foundation and core of the team exists and the future is bright with the strong farm system. 2016 will be fun.
I can't tell if you're serious or not.
First, aging curves should be taken with a complete pound of salt; I've yet to see aging curves that include confidence intervals, so that we can have some estimate of the variance in the aging process.
Second, there's little reason to suspect that Price will pitch poorly by 32 years of age. While pitching, on average, is better with younger pitchers, that's the central tendency; Price is not an average pitcher. Price is 30 next year and hasn't shown any injury concerns or velocity drops. In fact, his 27 and 28 year old seasons had an average fastball velocity 1 MPH lower relative to his average; he was still an excellent pitcher in both those years. There's no reason to expect him to fall off a cliff or have CC Sabathia's career trajectory.
Third, ignoring the opt-out for now, these deals expect excess value in the early years (30-32 year old Price may be worth as much as 105-120 million) which compensates for the back end. Hell, even if he does have CC Sabathia's trajectory, he'll probably opt out before the collapse.
It's hard to evaluate this deal without knowing what the club's long-term payroll plans are. If we're going to try to get under the CBT threshold in 2017, it's a terrible deal. If we're going to spend like the Yankees and Dodgers going forward, I guess it's OK.
I agree completely. From a roster perspective, this is a great move. However, if one is interested in the value of the deal, it is really difficult to evaluate a deal at the time of a signing or without context. We don't know what other moves will be made over the next two seasons, which will affect the value this deal provides in the long run.
I hate the opt out if only for starting this discussion again.
I think many focus on the fact that an opt-out provides no upside to a team, and ignore the fact that an opt-out reduces the downside to a team. An opt-out, relative to not having an opt-out, reduces the risk that the team will carry an expensive player that performs below expectations on the back end of the deal. For example, let's say David Price has CC Sabathia's career trajectory, and he's one of the top 5 pitchers over the next three seasons. Every incentive (even if Price wants to continue playing for the Red Sox) exists to opt out of the contract. He signs with another team and demonstrates a 1.5 MPH velocity drop the next season. The Red Sox just avoided a burdensome contract, and have the opportunity to spend that 30 million elsewhere.
In other words, an opt-out maximizes the upside for the player, but reduces the downside for a team towards the end of the contract. The only scenario where an opt-out is worse for the team (vs. not having an opt-out) is when the pitcher exercises the opt-out and continues to perform well.