Without picking up any of the tab? Unlikely. You may get something, you may not, but no team taking on that large of a contract is going to be returning a lot of value.
Red Sox sign David Price
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
Schilling also mentioned this as a possible signing as well on the ESPNWatch app with his thoughts on the signing
They both opt out in 3 years then the deal was a success. The first Sabathia deal where the Yankees gave him an opt out was a huge success. The resigning...not so much. If he opts out that free agent class is filled with young aces if of course no one is extended.
I would kill to have a clear-eyed account of the differing negotiating styles between BC and DD.
Cole Hamels says hi.
A contract at market AAV for below-market years has value -- at a minimum, something modestly more valuable than the first-round pick a club would surrender to sign a comparable FA to a market deal.
As you mentioned there is also the media and clubhouse pressure you have to consider if you opt to trade a highly productive 33YO pitcher on a playoff caliber team. The Sox probably want him for 3-5 years and would rather lose him a year early than a year late. A lot easier to have him walk instead of trying to trade him a year early.
People are reacting like he got a full NTC for 7yrs. The downside to the opt out is you get at worst market value performance for 3yrs. This is hardly the negative people are making it out to be.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2015/12/01/david-price-boston-red-sox-zack-greinke-free-agents-st-louis-cardinals/76630810/
if true...
Interesting that the Red Sox really had their choice of Greinke or Price, and that they really were planning to blow everyone else out of the water (they outbid the Cardinals by over $30 Million). I would have preferred Greinke, assuming a shorter contract, but they were on a mission.
if true...
Interesting that the Red Sox really had their choice of Greinke or Price, and that they really were planning to blow everyone else out of the water (they outbid the Cardinals by over $30 Million). I would have preferred Greinke, assuming a shorter contract, but they were on a mission.
You're not thinking this through. Price only opts out if he's getting more elsewhere.
Excellent post, with the bolded the heart of the matter. This is really tempest-in-a-teacup stuff.
You're the one not thinking it through. If that's the case, how is that a negative for the Sox? Perhaps he's still the same pitcher 34+ that he was from 30-33, but that's not a bet I'd be confident making.
Love it! A lot of money, but not my money.
I worry a bit about the luxury tax cap, but the current CBA expires next year. It's reasonable to suspect that the cap will be raised in the next CBA, meaning that the Sox could get under the cap in 2017 without lowering payroll.
Welcome to the Red Sox, David Price! I look forward to rooting for you.
I worry a bit about the luxury tax cap, but the current CBA expires next year. It's reasonable to suspect that the cap will be raised in the next CBA, meaning that the Sox could get under the cap in 2017 without lowering payroll.
Welcome to the Red Sox, David Price! I look forward to rooting for you.
That's not what I believe. It sounds like they were all-in on both Price and Grienke, with Price being the #1 option (hence them upping their offer this morning). Dombrowski couldn't risk losing out on both, so once they gave Price the final offer they needed and answer because if he chose to sign with STL, DD would immediately transition to Grienke. Sounds like Grienke's agent gave the Red Sox an offer that could be accepted and Grienke was ready to go. Essentially, if Price turned down the Sox they would have landed Grienke for the offer his agent put out there. It sounds like the Red Sox were willing to pay ZG the most money and that's why Grienke's people were pushing for an answer. If Red Sox turn down Grienke they turn back to LA and SF.
The numbers have been updated. The first 3 years are $90 million, not $93. It's not a big deal in the scheme of things, but we should get this right.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2015/12/01/david-price-boston-red-sox-zack-greinke-free-agents-st-louis-cardinals/76630810/
lol. Although I wonder what we had offered Greinke and whether DD really wanted him first over Price or it was just negotiating tactics
I like A-Rod as an example, because opt-out defenders misread it. Yes, the Yankees would have been better off if they had let A-Rod walk. But know how they would have been even better off than that? If his contract didn't include an opt-out in the first place! (and yes, I know they're not the ones who gave it to him). If his contract was a straight 10 years, 2001-2010, then he would have been worth it the entire time, and the Yankees could have kept A-Rod from 2008-2010 (while he was still good) without having to tack on the additional 7 years after that. THAT is the problem with opt-outs that too many people ignore. It's not that the team is better off letting the player walk, it's that a lot of the time the team would be better off if the opt-out didn't exist in the first place.
There is nothing I don't grasp. You seem to think that because there is a middle ground, the risk isn't there and that's just stupid. The Sox are signing this contract now. They have to account for the possibility of this contract going to shit and they have to do it now. They do not have the luxury of knowing what's going to happen in the next three years. They are accepting the risk of a seven year contract while letting Price have the benefit of a three year contract.
You don't get to advise me of misunderstanding you then massively misunderstand me in the next paragraph.
When a player opts out, the team is harmed because they have an extra hole in their roster. In the best case scenario, the team has a cost controlled player ready to take over that position and they don't have to negotiate with anyone for anything, but even then, they have a resource they could have used as trade bait which they can't do now.
The downside risk is the same either way, though. If Price's shoulder blows up in spring training and he never pitches an inning, the Red Sox and Price are exactly where they would be if there was no opt out.
If he pitches great for the next 3 years, he can walk and go to the highest bidder. But 33 year old pitcher is a strong bet to be worth 4/$127, even in 2018. They are giving Price a huge insurance policy on his career - those last 4 years are unmistakably a huge value. But he was getting those anyway, opt out or no. This gives the Sox at least a change to get out of the back end years.
The way the opt out becomes unambiguously a loss for the Red Sox is if Price opts out and they give him a big raise.
Clearly that contract would have been better for the team if the optout wasn't there. But if it wasn't then maybe some other club is enjoying paying for those prime years for a few mill more per year or for a year extra.
Except it's not the same circumstances, as Price signed at 30 years old and A-Rod at 25.
Remember folks, one of the selling points for the Crawford deal was that it was relatively low risk (because he was durable, relatively young, and the sort of player that ages well). The moral of the story is there's no such thing as a long-term contract that isn't high-risk. That's why I hate the opt-out -- the Sox are taking the risk, without receiving a commensurate reward.
Again, if we're going to spend like the Yankees or Dodgers going forward, it's not that big a deal. But I don't believe we're suddenly going to start doing that.
Again, if we're going to spend like the Yankees or Dodgers going forward, it's not that big a deal. But I don't believe we're suddenly going to start doing that.
We're now the best team in baseball, with a new infusion of highly talented young players and one of the best farm systems. I hate buying championships Yankee style but that's another post and thread. Sit back and enjoy y'all - we're in for a great ride!
Yes but that's not relevant. If he opts out it means he'll make more money. The Sox will have to decide if they want to pay him more money. They now have a second decision to make that's independent of the opt out. Whether they suffer through a swift decline, get four more good years, watch another team get stuck with his swift decline, or watch another team enjoy four more good years- completely unrelated to the contract that was signed today. They could make the wrong or right decision four years from now. If they choose wisely, great. If they choose poorly it'll sucks. But the fact that letting him go and him declining swiftly is one possible scenario four years from now does not benefit the team today in any way. For the Sox to benefit, Price has to either choose the wrong option in year four (very unlikely), or the Sox need to choose the right option (to resign or let him go) if he opts out. That second decision is what will make it a good or bad situation for the Sox, not the granting of the option.
There is risk in signing any player to any contract. I didn't say there was no risk in an optout. You ARE saying though that there is no scenario where an opt out benefits the club. That is incorrect and there are real life examples of it.
A team has a hole in their roster whether a player opts out or whether a "normal" contract ends. What sort of argument is this?
If Robinson Cano had an opt out this year and exercise it the Mariners would have a hole at 2b. I don't think they would be too upset about it though.
The dodgers have a hole because Greinke opted out, Toronto have a hole because Prices contract ended. Whats the difference?
The team isn't necessarily harmed because now they have 31M more per year to put towards a younger FA. Hell perhaps they can find the next 30YO #1 pitcher to give a 7yr/230M contract to. The only way they are harmed with Price accepting the opt out is if they can't find an equal or better replacement for 4/127 for Price's age 34-37 seasons.
Quoted for truth. At the risk of teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs, it would be great to have a thread where we could talk about this signing without all the armchair option theory about the opt out.
This deal makes me think even more highly of Cherington, and I already think quite highly of him. While he wasn't the best builder of 25-man rosters, he left this franchise set up such that we could still trade for a Carrasco or Sale or Fernandez to slot between Price and Buchholz.
The gamble in this contract is about whether Price's age-related decline becomes significant before or after his option year. He's 30. I'd bet after.
If Price is still an ace in 2019, he opts out, gets more money somewhere else and the Sox are off the hook for his age 33-34-35-36 years when he's most likely to fall off a cliff.
If Price declines to #2-#3 starter level by 2019, he stays put and the Sox have a slightly overpriced (by then) middle-of-rotation starter. Or he opts out and it's not our problem.
This contract only sucks if Price gets injured before 2019, but that's always a risk and expect the Sox will buy contract insurance for that possibility.
If Price is still an ace in 2019, he opts out, gets more money somewhere else and the Sox are off the hook for his age 33-34-35-36 years when he's most likely to fall off a cliff.
If Price declines to #2-#3 starter level by 2019, he stays put and the Sox have a slightly overpriced (by then) middle-of-rotation starter. Or he opts out and it's not our problem.
This contract only sucks if Price gets injured before 2019, but that's always a risk and expect the Sox will buy contract insurance for that possibility.
The Opt Out Debate is getting pretty stale; so I skimmed it. That said, I don't believe anyone has pointed out that the opt-out is an additional motivation for Price to stay healthy and deliver on the first 3 years of his contract. I'm sure he's an otherwise well motivated guy (in terms of him just being competitive). But the additional inducement can't hurt.
Plus, I like the fact that he's got something to prove re: his post season performances.
Plus, I like the fact that he's got something to prove re: his post season performances.
It's extremely relevant, and I find it highly unlikely the Sox would even entertain the idea of signing him if he opts out. If that were the case, they wouldn't have given it to him in the first place. It goes back to what I said earlier, the consensus opinion on opt-outs is almost entirely based on the Yankees bidding against themselves to give CC and A-Rod more years and money.
Giving a 25 year old an opt-out after three years is unwise, as the chance of decline at 28 is unlikely. A 30 year old does not have those same odds, and to suggest otherwise and label it as irrelevant, is, well...shortsighted.
I'm offering a wager. If you post something about an opt out in this thread and I can find a post saying essentially the same thing already, you give me a dollar. If I can't, I give you a dollar. Please use the words "logic" "market" "decline" or "Johan Santana" in your response if you accept.
Disagree. There's a reasonable likelihood that in 2019, the team and Price disagree about his value going forward.
If, in 2019, Price thinks he's worth more than $127 million for four-years going forward and the Sox think he's worth less than that, his opting out to seek more money elsewhere is in both party's best interests.
I doubt they reached agreement on 7/217 and then Henry thre in the opt out for shits and giggles.
The alternative to giving the opt out was likely either losing him or giving some other value like offering 8/$250.
I'm Plympton91 and I approve this deal!
Better pitcher than Lester, only a marginal increase over Scherzer's nominal value (and with the ZLB still binding deferrals aren't what they used to be) so not making a new market for pitchers; best pitcher on the market hands down considering AL East battle tested, age, and consistency; even if he misses a year later, could come back Lackey level and provide significant value. Even if he is sucking up payroll in 2019, they'll have Moncada, Benintendi and hopefully Devers and Espinoza making the minimum still, and Betts and Bradley only 2nd year arbs so there's plent of flexibility; no draft pick surrendered.
For luxury tax purposes, which is all we should care about, it doesn't matter. If he opts out the tax gets recalculated and they will get a rebate.
You still don't understand and this fact is frustrating me. I think I've already been rude and will probably be so more and I apologize, but it bugs the shit out of me when people can't or won't understand things that are very simple.
There are some situations where a team can offer an opt out, the player can take it, and the team come out of it just fine. In those situations and all the others, the benefit of including the upside in the contract is all on the player's side when compared to the same contract without the opt out clause. Including the opt out clause might be worth it to the team if it means getting the player they want or getting the player for fewer dollars.
A normal contract doesn't put risk on the team beyond the end of the contract. What we're looking at here is a 3/90 contract with a player option for 4/127 that is activated if the player performs poorly.
If Robinson Cano had an opt out this year, he wouldn't exercise it.
The difference is that if Greinke's arm had blown up in June, his contract wouldn't have ended and Price's still would have. Oh, and if he didn't have the opt out clause, he's still under contract and they aren't looking to sign a big free agent pitcher.
Let me reframe this a bit.
Player A is signed for a seven year deal with an opt out after three years. Player B is signed for a seven year deal with no opt out.
Both players perform very well for their first three years.
Player B dies. Car crash, plane crash, whatever, he dies. The team has insurance to cover the remaining salary so they aren't out of pocket any of that money. This is a bad thing for the team, right? They have to scramble around to replace that player.
When Player A opts out, it's the same thing. It's a bit more forseeable, and it means the supply of players to replace the player with is precisely one player deeper than if he'd died, but the effect is the same.
When you sign anyone to a contract, there's a range of things that can happen. They can perform poorly and be massively overpaid for a long time. They can perform excellently and be massively underpaid for a long time. When you sign someone to a contract with an opt out, you're accepting the risk of potentially massively overpaying them for a long time and giving away any possibility of massively underpaying them for a long time. When it's a free agent contract like this where the guy is being paid top dollar, you're also giving away any possibility of paying them about what they're worth for a long time.
It's seven years worth of risk for three years worth of upside. It's a massive risk to take on. Sometimes those risks are worth taking. Often, they are not.
Perhaps if your position is obvious and easy to understand and people are still disagreeing with you it's not because they don't understand your position.
Word.
Jeff Sullivan at FanGraphs says that before Price, the Sox projected as the AL leader:
"We know the Red Sox suddenly project real well for 2016. I shouldn’t say “suddenly” — Price didn’t change the whole picture. But I just looked at the early team WAR projections, based on Steamer and the depth charts, and the Red Sox lead the American League. That can only go so far. Duh. There’s a whole lot of offseason left, and just last year we were touting how well the Red Sox were projected in March. The Mariners, too. The projections had a rough year last year in the AL. But I think this much should be clear: the Red Sox ought to be good. They’re a contender, today. Maybe the best team in the division. So the timing was right for a move like this, even if it’s a bit of an overpay, which isn’t entirely clear. The 2016 Red Sox could win it all. They have a lineup, an ace, and a closer."
(http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-we-know-about-david-price-on-the-red-sox/)
Absolutely thrilled with this signing. Top pitcher available, with great mechanics and a history of pitching well in both Fenway Park and the AL East, and a superb teammate to boot? Yes please.
Don't get the 'hate' that some people feel towards Price. I've thought he was more pissy than anything, but I suppose that's to be expected after losses from a guy whose supposedly a huge redass competitor like Price is. If he pitches well right from the outset the fans will be behind him and I think he's going to love it here.
Not going to get into the opt-out stuff, other than to say that I hope if Price does exercise this option, it's because he's pissed that John Farrell decided to start Eduardo Rodriguez in the clinching game of the 2018 World Series instead of him.
Don't get the 'hate' that some people feel towards Price. I've thought he was more pissy than anything, but I suppose that's to be expected after losses from a guy whose supposedly a huge redass competitor like Price is. If he pitches well right from the outset the fans will be behind him and I think he's going to love it here.
Not going to get into the opt-out stuff, other than to say that I hope if Price does exercise this option, it's because he's pissed that John Farrell decided to start Eduardo Rodriguez in the clinching game of the 2018 World Series instead of him.
Before this afternoon, many of us were worrying about a megadeal for Price because he wouldn't be worth it in the last years. If today's news had been that he signed a three-year deal for $90 million, we all would have been ecstatic.
That's not exactly what's happened, but it's close enough. If he gets a career-threatening injury or suddenly turns into a pumpkin, then it's a terrible deal. They're betting those things won't happen. I'd take that bet for a guy like Price, who's been both talented and durable.
That's not exactly what's happened, but it's close enough. If he gets a career-threatening injury or suddenly turns into a pumpkin, then it's a terrible deal. They're betting those things won't happen. I'd take that bet for a guy like Price, who's been both talented and durable.
Sure, but if they understood my position, they wouldn't be replying with answers that indicate they don't.
Also, given the possibility of me being wrong and some random person on the internet being wrong, well, I know where the good bet is.
I'm not really sure I buy the notion that the Sox are the best team in baseball, but we're gonna be pretty good.
No doubt. As Sullivan said, the projections don't always work out. But I'm pretty happy that DD has taken the good August-September team and made it better (on paper).