Chris Sale 2020 - TJ Bound and Down

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,601
None of this is good. The extension may turn out to be the worst contract ever given by this organization.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,712
NY
I thought the inability to sign Mookie argument was tied to the baseball related luxury tax penalties (eg draft pick losses), which are a direct result of the pitching investments. They couldn't pay him fair market value this year because of the need to reset the tax, not that he isn't worth a long term contract?
I'm trying to think this through. If they signed Mookie and didn't sign Sale, I assume they'd still have Price's contract on the books. They'd save 13m if they let Sale walk but they'd have a big hole in the rotation. So they'd have to replace Sale, pay Mookie his 27m, pay Price- how would they get under the cap? Obviously there are many variables and options but it doesn't seem like keeping Mookie and not extending Sale was the solution.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,079
Maine
I'm trying to think this through. If they signed Mookie and didn't sign Sale, I assume they'd still have Price's contract on the books. They'd save 13m if they let Sale walk but they'd have a big hole in the rotation. So they'd have to replace Sale, pay Mookie his 27m, pay Price- how would they get under the cap? Obviously there are many variables and options but it doesn't seem like keeping Mookie and not extending Sale was the solution.
Is this assuming they could extend Mookie, or that they'd have kept him on the $27M one-year deal and still risked his leaving as a free agent anyway?

Because the latter is a huge component that seems to get ignored in most discussion/debate about the implications of the Sale and Eovaldi extensions on the Mookie situation. Whether they extended those two pitchers or not, the calculus around Mookie is all about the viability of a long-term deal. Even without one or both of those contracts, they likely would still be in the position of getting something for Mookie now versus letting him walk for nothing more than a draft pick because he is demanding more than they're willing to pay, luxury tax or not.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
6,231
None of this is good. The extension may turn out to be the worst contract ever given by this organization.
Until he shows he can pitch well, consistently, and can even be 80% of what he was, it is, by far, the worst contract ever handed out. It's the inverse of the Ruth sale.

I don't even think it's close as it stands right now. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we have several more years to see if he can pull the nose up or if his pitching career winds up the same as that dude who built his own steam-powered rocket: sky high for a moment in time, then a quick descent and abrupt ending.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
5,750
Good thing they chose to pay this guy instead of Mookie. Good job good effort.
They didn't, they tried for several years to pay Mookie and he wouldn't take their money, so then they extended the guys they could come to an agreement with instead of no one
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
21,031
Saskatoon Canada
Until he shows he can pitch well, consistently, and can even be 80% of what he was, it is, by far, the worst contract ever handed out. It's the inverse of the Ruth sale.

I don't even think it's close as it stands right now. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we have several more years to see if he can pull the nose up or if his pitching career winds up the same as that dude who built his own steam-powered rocket: sky high for a moment in time, then a quick descent and abrupt ending.
At the time I thought this meant they for sure would sign Mookie. If they had enough money to burn on Sale, then for sure they would sign Mookie. This is like a Bryant Reeves level of bad extension.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I'm trying to think this through. If they signed Mookie and didn't sign Sale, I assume they'd still have Price's contract on the books. They'd save 13m if they let Sale walk but they'd have a big hole in the rotation. So they'd have to replace Sale, pay Mookie his 27m, pay Price- how would they get under the cap? Obviously there are many variables and options but it doesn't seem like keeping Mookie and not extending Sale was the solution.
They could have traded Mookie to the Dodgers and kept Price, who, unlike Sale, is healthy enough to pitch right now.

As I said in the trade thread, there was a reasonable probability that Price would be more valuable than Sale over the next 3 years. And their AAVs were only $2 million different.

Someone above said Sale’s contract was the worst ever given by this organization. It may well be one of the highest risk contracts ever given by any organization, and even if it had turned Out based on a reasonable median projection for WAR it would have provided only a small amount of excess value.

Combined, and putting that into Sharpe Ratio terms for you finance folks, ratio of expected return to volatility is nowhere near the efficient frontier. And, hence, a terrible investment.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
27,933
Remember when he just had pneumonia? Ah those were innocent times.
the arm bone is connected to the rib bone.

If that's not the worst contract (probably Rusney is), it's the worst needless extension.

Hopefully he can recover by July 2021, and that way when he;s about it have his annual end of season fatigue, it will already be Thanksgiving.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Awful news. Not really unexpected though. I was sort of suspicious about pneumonia in January causing him to miss opening day

Oh well, if he needs TJS maybe that wont be the worst thing if he can get back to form for the remainder of the contract.

Maybe they cancel the season due to COVID-19. :(Only half serious but what happens then, mlb insurance pays salaries?. Service clock/contract clock stops?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,612
This just doesn't follow, though. They didn't pay Mookie what he wanted because they didn't think he was worth that much, not because they couldn't afford it.

Now, if you want to argue that Sale and Mookie are related because the immediate failure of the Sale extension was a good reminder that it can be a crippling mistake to overpay even elite players, well, I can't argue with that.
They're literally spending 33% more on the Sale/Eovaldi extensions than Betts' alleged extension request. Now they still might have dealt Betts to get rid of Price, but at least then they would have had the flexibility to spend money on other areas of need.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,712
NY
Is this assuming they could extend Mookie, or that they'd have kept him on the $27M one-year deal and still risked his leaving as a free agent anyway?

Because the latter is a huge component that seems to get ignored in most discussion/debate about the implications of the Sale and Eovaldi extensions on the Mookie situation. Whether they extended those two pitchers or not, the calculus around Mookie is all about the viability of a long-term deal. Even without one or both of those contracts, they likely would still be in the position of getting something for Mookie now versus letting him walk for nothing more than a draft pick because he is demanding more than they're willing to pay, luxury tax or not.
To clarify, I was only responding to the comment that the main issue was getting under the cap. Whether they extended Mookie or not, I don't see how they could've done so even if they let Sale walk unless they would've still done the LA deal. So bottom line, I don't think it makes sense to blame the Sale extension for the loss of Mookie.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,612
They could have traded Mookie to the Dodgers and kept Price, who, unlike Sale, is healthy enough to pitch right now.

As I said in the trade thread, there was a reasonable probability that Price would be more valuable than Sale over the next 3 years. And their AAVs were only $2 million different.

Someone above said Sale’s contract was the worst ever given by this organization. It may well be one of the highest risk contracts ever given by any organization, and even if it had turned Out based on a reasonable median projection for WAR it would have provided only a small amount of excess value.

Combined, and putting that into Sharpe Ratio terms for you finance folks, ratio of expected return to volatility is nowhere near the efficient frontier. And, hence, a terrible investment.
I said in the trade thread that there were good reasons to deal Betts' regardless. But if they didn't have to dump Price in the deal they would have gotten back a lot more than a damaged goods OF, a good IF prospect, and a utility player prospect.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,079
Maine
They're literally spending 33% more on the Sale/Eovaldi extensions than Betts' alleged extension request. Now they still might have dealt Betts to get rid of Price, but at least then they would have had the flexibility to spend money on other areas of need.
Yeah, and they're getting two players for that price, not one. And they're also not committed to those two players through age 38-39, as they would have been with the alleged Betts' extension ask.

And they did not trade Betts to move Price. They traded Betts to trade Betts. They just happened to find their best opportunity to move Price in the Betts deal. Let's not forget that the Betts thing re-kindled after being dormant for two months because the Padres were jumping into the discussions. Price was never mentioned as a possibility in those negotiations (as reported, anyway). It would stand to reason that if Price was stapled to Betts all along, the Padres talk would have been a non-starter from the beginning rather than the fire under Friedman's butt to get the deal done for the Dodgers.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,612
Yeah, and they're getting two players for that price, not one.
Actually, they're not getting any players. ;)

And they did not trade Betts to move Price. They traded Betts to trade Betts. They just happened to find their best opportunity to move Price in the Betts deal. Let's not forget that the Betts thing re-kindled after being dormant for two months because the Padres were jumping into the discussions. Price was never mentioned as a possibility in those negotiations (as reported, anyway).
If there were no need to move Price they could have done a lot better than a player that's damaged goods, a prospective utility man in A ball and a real prospect. But because they had to dump Price in the deal they got two pennies and a stick of used chewing gum for a tenspot.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,079
Maine
If there were no need to move Price they could have done a lot better than a player that's damaged goods, a prospective utility man in A ball and a real prospect. But because they had to dump Price in the deal they got two pennies and a stick of used chewing gum for a tenspot.
I think you're over-estimating what Betts was worth all by himself...on a(n expensive) one year deal with no realistic expectation of being able to extend him long-term. I don't deny that Price's inclusion may have lessened the return, but I think it's arguable that the cash sent along with him made him more or less neutral in the trade value equation.

If Betts alone could have yielded a better return than what the Sox got, I think there'd have been more interest in him around the league. The high one-year salary plus only having one year of control suppressed his market as much or more than having Price stapled to him, IMO.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,425
So, our 1-2-3 are ERod, Eovaldi and Perez?

It sucks to see any hope of a competitive season sale away before Opening Day.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,380
They didn't, they tried for several years to pay Mookie and he wouldn't take their money, so then they extended the guys they could come to an agreement with instead of no one
Don't even bother - the narrative has been set by now.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
4,440
Mansfield, MA
No doubt the Sale contract has been terrible, but worst ever by the organization is an overstatement. Castillo, Sandoval, Crawford come to mind just off the top of my head.

Sale at least contributed to a World Series champion.
 
Last edited:

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
5,955
SS Botany Bay
But it's likely that Sale's contract is insured, so if Sale can't pitch any more due to TJ, pneumonia, coronavirus, ebola, and/or plague, John Henry won't lose much money on this deal, that's the most important thing.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,079
Maine
No doubt the Sale contract has been terrible, but worst ever by the organization is an overstatement. Castillo, Sandoval, H. Crawford come to mind just off the top of my head.

Sale at least contributed to a World Series champion.
While I agree with you about it not (yet) being the worse ever, it should be pointed out that Sale's contribution to a World Series came before the extension in question was ever discussed, let alone signed.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
4,440
Mansfield, MA
While I agree with you about it not (yet) being the worse ever, it should be pointed out that Sale's contribution to a World Series came before the extension in question was ever discussed, let alone signed.
You're right, for some reason I thought it was the year before.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
10,597
The Coney Island of my mind
But it's likely that Sale's contract is insured, so if Sale can't pitch any more due to TJ, pneumonia, coronavirus, ebola, and/or plague, John Henry won't lose much money on this deal, that's the most important thing.
I'd guess he's almost certainly not insured, but it would be interesting to see if that's the case. The cost of insuring his arm would have been through the roof, so if they actually decided to pony up the premiums, it would say something about how confident the organization was re: his ability to pitch through the contract.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
5,750
No doubt the Sale contract has been terrible, but worst ever by the organization is an overstatement. Castillo, Sandoval, H. Crawford come to mind just off the top of my head.

Sale at least contributed to a World Series champion.
His new contract hasn't even started yet, he'd have to be close to replacement level for 5 years to be worse than any of those 4
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Here's the irony in all of this. Let's say the Sox backed up the Brinks truck for Mookie, gave him whatever it took to sign an extension and didn't extend Sale. Let's again suppose that in order to do that The Sox trade David Price. And if you all will humor me for a minute, Let's suppose Mookie suffered an injury this season that seriously altered his career. I'm wondering how many would be screaming how idiotic it was to extend Mookie to such a huge deal. How many would say it was the worse deal ever and that they should have either A) traded Betts and got something of value for him or B) let him play out the 2020 season and let him walk because the contract has crippled the team. My point being hindsight is a beautiful thing. Was there a higher degree of risk in extending Sale? Sure, but you run a certain amount of risk in signing/extending any player. As someone noted above, Sale was already under contract for this season, so IF (big if) he misses the season with TJ, he's hopefully back mid season next year (the first year of his extension) and we really have to measure the validity of that extension from that point on. Just as with trade returns, I realize that's not something we do here, but the reality is we have no idea whether re-upping Sale was a bad move or not.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,612
A Mookie injury would have been a freak accident which was not at all predictable and we’d (justifiably) mock anyone that said that Boston should have known that some pitcher was going to break his wrist with a pitch. Chris Sale, by contrast, was already starting to show signs of wear and tear at the time of the extension.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
A Mookie injury would have been a freak accident which was not at all predictable and we’d (justifiably) mock anyone that said that Boston should have known that some pitcher was going to break his wrist with a pitch. Chris Sale, by contrast, was already starting to show signs of wear and tear at the time of the extension.
Where in my post did I say that anything was predictable? In fact I said there was a higher risk in extending Sale. You know as well as I do that there is a certain percentage of the membership here that would shit all over a Mookie extension at $40 million per for 10 years this off season under any circumstance, let alone if he got a career altering injury in the upcoming season before the extension ever kicked in. My point being there is so much outrage in these forums. Some legit, some of it fake and much of it knee jerk "the sky is falling" whenever something doesn't go the way we want. Rarely is there ever the stance taken of let's see how things work out. I get that we're all invested to some degree in the teams that we root for, but at times it's really way over board. Take the time to read through this thread (it's only 3 pages to this point) and tell me I'm wrong.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,969
Santa Monica, CA
This does seem like the way to go.
2020, we hardly knew ye.
I guess without any remotely reliable starting pitchers, we're looking at a lost year.

But it still feels beyond awful to completely punt a year when you have Devers, Benintendi, JD, and X in the lineup.

It's hard to recall a year that the Sox went into a season with a rotation this ridiculous. 1997?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,601
I guess without any remotely reliable starting pitchers, we're looking at a lost year.

But it still feels beyond awful to completely punt a year when you have Devers, Benintendi, JD, and X in the lineup.

It's hard to recall a year that the Sox went into a season with a rotation this ridiculous. 1997?
Maybe, just maybe.....

- Perez turns out to be a 15-win diamond in the rough
- Rodriguez moves to the next level, wins 20 and posts a low 3's era
- Eovaldi stays healthy and ends up being a 16-win, mid-3's era horse

I think that Eovaldi has the ability to do that. Rodriguez is close to being that already. Perez...meh, that would take a miracle, IMO, but obviously the Sox see something in him that makes them think it's possible.

If so, that's a quality top 3 pitchers. Of course, if Perez is what I think he is (not very good), Eovaldi has trouble either staying healthy or performing to his ability level (which has basically been the case throughout his career), and Rodriguez takes a step back (totally possible), this team is going to struggle to win 70 games.

But I'm not punting on 2020 just yet. The ball has been snapped and the rush is coming, but I haven't quite punted just yet.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,521
St. Louis, MO
Maybe, just maybe.....

- Perez turns out to be a 15-win diamond in the rough
- Rodriguez moves to the next level, wins 20 and posts a low 3's era
- Eovaldi stays healthy and ends up being a 16-win, mid-3's era horse

I think that Eovaldi has the ability to do that. Rodriguez is close to being that already. Perez...meh, that would take a miracle, IMO, but obviously the Sox see something in him that makes them think it's possible.

If so, that's a quality top 3 pitchers. Of course, if Perez is what I think he is (not very good), Eovaldi has trouble either staying healthy or performing to his ability level (which has basically been the case throughout his career), and Rodriguez takes a step back (totally possible), this team is going to struggle to win 70 games.

But I'm not punting on 2020 just yet. The ball has been snapped and the rush is coming, but I haven't quite punted just yet.
I’m with you, but there’s a shit ton of innings outside those 3 that we have no idea where they are coming from.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,601
I’m with you, but there’s a shit ton of innings outside those 3 that we have no idea where they are coming from.
Totally agree. But Tampa managed to win a lot of games last year (96 to be exact) with only three guys pitching more than 107 innings, and zero offensive players as good as the Sox' big three of JD, Devers, and X (though one might argue that Meadows was).

So it can be done.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Maybe, just maybe.....

- Perez turns out to be a 15-win diamond in the rough
- Rodriguez moves to the next level, wins 20 and posts a low 3's era
- Eovaldi stays healthy and ends up being a 16-win, mid-3's era horse

I think that Eovaldi has the ability to do that. Rodriguez is close to being that already. Perez...meh, that would take a miracle, IMO, but obviously the Sox see something in him that makes them think it's possible.

If so, that's a quality top 3 pitchers. Of course, if Perez is what I think he is (not very good), Eovaldi has trouble either staying healthy or performing to his ability level (which has basically been the case throughout his career), and Rodriguez takes a step back (totally possible), this team is going to struggle to win 70 games.

But I'm not punting on 2020 just yet. The ball has been snapped and the rush is coming, but I haven't quite punted just yet.
First know that this entire post isn't directed at you. As for the highlighted, I understand the sentiment here and I hope you're right. If Rodriquez and Eovaldi can come close to what you're hoping for with ERA, if Perez can go out there every 5th day and keep it a touch under 4.00 and if all three can keep their WHIP below league average I think that's the best we can hope for considering all of those ifs. As we have seen for quite a few years now, with pitch limits wins are often at the mercy of the bullpen so getting through 6 innings as often as possible and hopefully into the 7th before hitting that magic pitch count is going to be crucial. That's something Rodriguez was slightly better at last season, but he's going have to go a step better this year. Eovaldi is likely to have his innings/pitch count managed to some extent. Hopefully the team can afford him some early leads to help lessen the work load and Perez is going to have to be more than any of us dreamed he could be. Then there are the other starter/opener positions to address. And you're right not to see the season as a punt. The team will field the best that it has to offer and we'll see where that leads. I certainly expect struggles, but the games have to be played and the team will assess and reassess where they stand at various points of the season. I'm looking forward to the start of the season. The team is far from the odds on favorites to win a wild card slot, much less the division or the World Series, but I want to see how they perform given the expectations or lack there of. I want to see who steps up to fill the voids left by Mookie, Price and possibly Sale. I want to see how the bullpen performs this season and if the Sox can employ the opener with any level of success. I want to see if Vazquez can continue what he did offensively in 2019 and what a catching tandem of Vazquez and a healthy Lucroy might lend to this team. I want to see if Chavis can improve on last season, if Peraza can return to his 2018 form and what Kevin Pillar can contribute. Oh and there's the matter of Alex Verdugo. I'm anxious for him to start his career as a Red Sox and find out what the kid has. Yeah it sucks that this season has so many question marks and I wish Sale was healthy, but this is where they're at and I want to see what this team can do. It's not like we're rooting for Baltimore or some other bottom feeder.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Some people above are saying that Sale was still under contract this season. That’s false. He would have been a free agent. 2020 is the first year of the extension. If he has TJ, the first 1-1/2 years of a 5 year contract are are a big fat zero.

Some are saying that people criticize everything. That’s true, but it’s not the same people criticizing everything. There are hundreds of posters here and they aren’t a monolith, so sure there’ll be some pro and some con and some wait and see on every move. That’s what makes this worthwhile.

And, because the internet is forever, we can go back and see who said what in real time when it mattered. So, we can call out those who really are Monday Morning Quarterbacking. With the Sale extension, you can go back to my earliest posts on the topic. It was a bad idea. Classic “Lemons Problem” in Economics where the buyer (team) is at a severe disadvantage due to the information advantage of the seller (Sale).

Final point, I’m not sure why folks are wishcasting that Bloom “sees something” in Perez. In all likelihood they just see a reasonably good 5th starter who can take the ball 30 times and not fully suck out loud every time. He is what he is, and that’s what they paid for.