Chris Sale aiming to return

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,913
Salem, NH
If a player is unvaccinated AND on the DL for non-COVID reasons, do the Red Sox still have to pay him for any games in Toronto during his DL stint? Four game set in late April, and another 3 in late June, which I wouldn't be shocked if he's still on the DL for.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
If a player is unvaccinated AND on the DL for non-COVID reasons, do the Red Sox still have to pay him for any games in Toronto during his DL stint? Four game set in late April, and another 3 in late June, which I wouldn't be shocked if he's still on the DL for.
Once he's on the IL, he's on the IL. It doesn't matter what the team is doing or where they are playing or any other factors while he's out. He'll get paid accordingly.

Besides, I very much doubt it's even worth the trouble of pursuing for the relatively small amount of money involved with 4-7 games worth of pay.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
In 2018 he pitched a grand total of 17 innings from Aug. 1 onwards because of injuries. He threw 60 fewer innings in 2018 than the year before because of injuries. And in the postseason that year....he wasn't really all that great. 4.11 ERA while never going more than 5.1 innings in his 3 starts.

So yeah, you might be the only one. The signs were there to be read that Sale wasn't going to age well.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Possibly I'm the only one here who thinks his 2018 season was kind of OK for us. And maybe that it was OK to roll the dice on extending a generational talent SP. Hmm.

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/rosenthal-sale-extension-5-years-145-million.26631/
You mean the season with the lowest FIP by an American League starting pitcher in the 21st century? I thought it was alright too.

At that point (March 2019), it looked like Sale would have entered the same FA market as Gerrit Cole with better marks (but a year and a half older). He might not have gotten Cole’s 9/$324 contract, but it would surely have been much higher than 5/$145. It sucks that it hasn’t worked out but it made sense at the time.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,683
San Diego
Available FA include Pineda, Greinke, and Danny Duffy. Kenley Jansen too.Yikes.
Zach Davies or Julio Teheran could be a good bounce back candidates. Julio would be pretty limited I imagine
I like Davies the most out of those options. He was great for San Diego in 2020. Had some pretty good years in Milwaukee too.

Greinke probably wouldn't take a ton to sign. Threw 170 decent innings last year too.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
Possibly I'm the only one here who thinks his 2018 season was kind of OK for us. And maybe that it was OK to roll the dice on extending a generational talent SP. Hmm.

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/rosenthal-sale-extension-5-years-145-million.26631/
Not particularly interested in going back and reading a 10 page thread from 2019, but I feel safe in assuming there's variety of opinions in there about the extension. I'd also ad that judging these things in hindsight, and as they unfold, is kind of what sports fans do. Lastly, nobody at the time could have foreseen that he would willfully restrict his availability against a good division opponent, and therefore potentially hurt his teams playoff chances, because he refuses to get a safe, proven vaccination. So, I think it's fair to re-evaluate the extension now, regardless of what one might have thought of it 3 years ago.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
You mean the season with the lowest FIP by an American League starting pitcher in the 21st century? I thought it was alright too.

At that point (March 2019), it looked like Sale would have entered the same FA market as Gerrit Cole with better marks (but a year and a half older). He might not have gotten Cole’s 9/$324 contract, but it would surely have been much higher than 5/$145. It sucks that it hasn’t worked out but it made sense at the time.
- He had another year to go on his existing contract. There was zero need for the extension at that point in time.
- His injuries were up and his IP were down. He also struggled badly in the 2017 postseason and was just...meh in 2018.
- He had faded towards the end of both 2017 and 2018. He is also built like Shawn Bradley and thus breaks down constantly.
- The deal gave the Sox a terrible year from Sale in 2019, absolutely nothing in 2020, and 40 innings in 2021.
- (and you knew this was coming) It solidly put them over the luxury tax line at a time the FO knew Betts' contract was up. Given the choice of keeping the players, the astute GM keeps Betts every single time.

It was a highly questionable deal the moment it was signed, and it has lived up to every doubters' worst fears since then. It's the worst contract the Sox have given out since...Clement? I dunno. It's a horrible extension. He has never for one moment been worth the money. It was by far DD's most damaging action when he was in charge of the club. If only he had been fired before making that deal.

More urgently: he's hurt. Again. Costing the Sox a huge chunk of time without him. He's also going to be unable to play in any games in Toronto (and perhaps New York) because of his choices. At this point he's a expensive liability on the team.
 
Last edited:

TapeAndPosts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2006
580
Possibly I'm the only one here who thinks his 2018 season was kind of OK for us. And maybe that it was OK to roll the dice on extending a generational talent SP. Hmm.

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/rosenthal-sale-extension-5-years-145-million.26631/
I was in favor at the time. It was five years, not eight or ten, and he had been a terrific pitcher for us and for the White Sox for a long time. Injuries had started to appear, but before 2018 he had averaged over 200 innings for the previous six seasons; in trying to predict the future a career of health and reliability was a factor as well as the problems that were starting to show up then. Maybe we forget at this point how great he had been, and how consistently great, but it was an opportunity to lock up a true ace without signing a contract taking us past his mid-30s.

Anyway it has been a disappointment, but I still see why they pulled the trigger on the extension.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Not particularly interested in going back and reading a 10 page thread from 2019, but I feel safe in assuming there's variety of opinions in there about the extension. I'd also ad that judging these things in hindsight, and as they unfold, is kind of what sports fans do. Lastly, nobody at the time could have foreseen that he would willfully restrict his availability against a good division opponent, and therefore potentially hurt his teams playoff chances, because he refuses to get a safe, proven vaccination. So, I think it's fair to re-evaluate the extension now, regardless of what one might have thought of it 3 years ago.
Quite a bit of the conversation was about why *Sale* would do that deal with one year left. Quite a few people, pointing to his rocky bits of 2018, said things like "he would take if he feels like his arm might fall off."
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
So, I think it's fair to re-evaluate the extension now, regardless of what one might have thought of it 3 years ago.
Perfectly fair.

It's also fair to ask if the transaction was a good idea at the time. Did it address a need? What were the known risks?

What's unfair is to confuse the two: to argue that even though one couldn't have known X, one shouldn't have done Y because X happened later.


It's the worst contract the Sox have given out since...Clement? I dunno.
Clement was a solid starter for the Cubs who was signed as a 29 year old for 3 years at $26m. He was an All-Star in his first half of his first season for us before he took a line drive to the head. Then his shoulder crapped out on him - and IIRC, Shagnasty and the barkers here kept insinuating he was "mentally weak" or some garbage like that. Turns out he needed extensive surgery: https://www.fosters.com/story/sports/2006/09/28/agent-says-clement-faces-long/53030266007/

Panda and Rusney had way more red flags than Sale or Clement.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
814
(B)Austin Texas
Once he's on the IL, he's on the IL. It doesn't matter what the team is doing or where they are playing or any other factors while he's out. He'll get paid accordingly.

Besides, I very much doubt it's even worth the trouble of pursuing for the relatively small amount of money involved with 4-7 games worth of pay.
7 games' pay is trivial to a well-paid athlete, but if I did the math right ($145M / 5 yrs / 162 games x 7 games), it equals a cool $1.25M. Not questioning whether the Sox have to pay it (they do), just mentioning that's it's not trivial (and not saying you called it "trivial").
 

rockchalkredsox

New Member
Oct 31, 2013
28
Whew. This is just never going to end with him. I assume he can't play n NY either IF HE COULD PLAY!!!!!!!!
JFYI - there is an exception for non-NYC/NJ resident entertainers and professional athletes:

"This private sector workplace requirement does not apply to the following: Non-NYC resident performing artists, college or professional athletes, and anyone who accompanies them."
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
Perfectly fair.

It's also fair to ask if the transaction was a good idea at the time. Did it address a need? What were the known risks?

What's unfair is to confuse the two: to argue that even though one couldn't have known X, one shouldn't have done Y because X happened later.




Clement was a solid starter for the Cubs who was signed as a 29 year old for 3 years at $26m. He was an All-Star in his first half of his first season for us before he took a line drive to the head. Then his shoulder crapped out on him - and IIRC, Shagnasty and the barkers here kept insinuating he was "mentally weak" or some garbage like that. Turns out he needed extensive surgery: https://www.fosters.com/story/sports/2006/09/28/agent-says-clement-faces-long/53030266007/

Panda and Rusney had way more red flags than Sale or Clement.
Not to go over this again.... but Clement actually started to go downhill fast a few games before the hit to the head. His shoulder was nothing but dust.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Not to go over this again.... but Clement actually started to go downhill fast a few games before the hit to the head. His shoulder was nothing but dust.
True - and he had a good August after the late July injury. His shoulder always was the culprit, and that was the point I was most interested in making. The guy came here, did well, and got injured.The amount of crap he got was totally undeserved.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Glass half full take; Sale can be great but can't make it through a full season. The smart thing would be to just have his first start on Memorial Day, but teams aren't yet willing to do things like that. This allows for that to happen.
Teams do that all the time, with the end of the rotation guys.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Teams do that all the time, with the end of the rotation guys.
Sure, but with a big money guy like Sale? That's it worked out with Clemens at the end, but he sort of did that on his own by not signing until late spring. Not sure when we will see a team bake that into a season, preventatively.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Seems like the Toronto/vaccination problem only becomes a problem if we have games there when he's actually able to pitch and it's his turn in the rotation, and if Canada still has the same rules whenever the hell that is. Given that he's looking at a long rehab and who the heck knows if he'll pick up some other ding before then, it is starting to feel like Chris Sale is not a guy worth spending too much of my mental fan energy on right now. I would guess it's pretty easy to play around with the rotation for a 3 game series if they need to. If they have to play in the playoffs against Toronto and he's healthy it will certainly be an issue but until then I'm not going to think about it.

The fact that we have a guy on the team who is anti-vax is obviously annoying in the V&N discussion category, but in terms of the baseball implications, I think it's better for my mental health just not to think about Chris Sale or expect anything from him going forward.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
Sure, but with a big money guy like Sale? That's it worked out with Clemens at the end, but he sort of did that on his own by not signing until late spring. Not sure when we will see a team bake that into a season, preventatively.
I think that's the other big difference here, and why I have a hard time seeing this particular glass as half-full, where the emphasis is on the word 'preventatively.' Sale isn't just taking time to rest up so that he can be fresh for more of the season. There are additional risks and effects that come along with missing time from injury, both in terms of impacting his eventual game readiness because he can't be on even a modified throwing program that he normally would during down time, as well as potential for re-injury a or setbacks in his recovery, or other injuries that come as a result of discomfort in his ribs when he does start throwing again, etc.. Saving bullets is one thing, but this ain't that.
 

Manuel Aristides

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2009
224
The real pain of sale is of course that that money could have perhaps gone to Mookie. I'm sorry to be the one to bring it up but in a discussion of "was that extension wise" it must be pointed out that it was a major reason that we couldn't retain the best homegrown player in 40 years. It was unnecessary at the time, too, they could have waited a year-- would be easier for me to swallow if that's what it took to keep him in the uniform but it wasn't and a fragile SP on the wrong side of 30 with a history of odd clubhouse stuff is exactly the kind of guy it would seem prudent to not over-reach for.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Hot take - they should get rid of the whole “multiple ballots” thing for precisely this reason. Either someone is a Hall of Famer or he isn’t. It never made sense to me why they need to dead out the process for a literal decade for some people. (Getting rid of the 10-player max would be a part of this change, of course.)
The real pain of sale is of course that that money could have perhaps gone to Mookie. I'm sorry to be the one to bring it up but in a discussion of "was that extension wise" it must be pointed out that it was a major reason that we couldn't retain the best homegrown player in 40 years. It was unnecessary at the time, too, they could have waited a year-- would be easier for me to swallow if that's what it took to keep him in the uniform but it wasn't and a fragile SP on the wrong side of 30 with a history of odd clubhouse stuff is exactly the kind of guy it would seem prudent to not over-reach for.
Do you really think it would be a good thing if the RS had Mookie on the team today with his current contract? I'd pass on that and think that money could be better spent.

Now if you are saying who would you rather have for the next 4 years at their current contract, then Mookie becomes the easy choice. But Mookie has 7 more years after that in the 25-30 M range. During the last year of the contract, he will be 39.
So overall considering the choices (neither good ones at their current salaries), I would rather have Sale.

It just shows you that these huge long-term contracts typically don't turn out well.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,461
Gallows Hill
The real pain of sale is of course that that money could have perhaps gone to Mookie. I'm sorry to be the one to bring it up but in a discussion of "was that extension wise" it must be pointed out that it was a major reason that we couldn't retain the best homegrown player in 40 years. It was unnecessary at the time, too, they could have waited a year-- would be easier for me to swallow if that's what it took to keep him in the uniform but it wasn't and a fragile SP on the wrong side of 30 with a history of odd clubhouse stuff is exactly the kind of guy it would seem prudent to not over-reach for.
If ownership wanted to pay Betts, then they would have. They have the money. There is no salary cap. Whether or not they signed Sale to what turned into a disastrous contract has nothing to do with them not signing Betts. Just like the disastrous contract that the game Pablo Sandoval had no bearing on their ability to re-sign Sale.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
Translation: The Sox will take it slow with Sale and he has a setback which pushes his return to late June. He goes on the DL in July and gets shut down for the season.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
Do you really think it would be a good thing if the RS had Mookie on the team today with his current contract? I'd pass on that and think that money could be better spent.
I know that this is not a strict either/or decision, but would you rather have Sale on the Sox at his current contract? Because Mookie *might* be an albatross in five-to-six years, but Sale is an albatross right now.

There was no need to sign him when they did. For a front office that was usually pretty good at giving out contracts, this one shocked me.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
I think a supposedly smart team is supposed to have a better medical evaluation of the guy than a bunch of fans on a message board when they are extending a guy with a year left on his deal, and when they also seemingly had plans to cut payroll to go under the luxury tax.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
I think a supposedly smart team is supposed to have a better medical evaluation of the guy than a bunch of fans on a message board when they are extending a guy with a year left on his deal, and when they also seemingly had plans to cut payroll to go under the luxury tax.
Okay. Then shut the board down.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
If ownership wanted to pay Betts, then they would have. They have the money. There is no salary cap. Whether or not they signed Sale to what turned into a disastrous contract has nothing to do with them not signing Betts. Just like the disastrous contract that the game Pablo Sandoval had no bearing on their ability to re-sign Sale.
The loss of draft slot and corresponding bonus pool money loomed large in ownership's decision making with Betts. Those are real, non-monetary, and baseball-related penalties for exceeding the CBT.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
Okay. Then shut the board down.
Not exactly. I think most of the posts in the original signing thread were evaluating him on the sort of "average" risk for pitchers, but assumed that the Red Sox had done their homework and were working with better information. I know I did. I'm saying that with the hindsight that he clearly was a big medical risk, the deal can look a lot worse than it may have at the time, and the Sox probably should have been better at that as there were warning signs (his windup, his frame, the relief conversion).
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I think a supposedly smart team is supposed to have a better medical evaluation of the guy than a bunch of fans on a message board when they are extending a guy with a year left on his deal, and when they also seemingly had plans to cut payroll to go under the luxury tax.
I’ve always assumed that JWH felt the same, and that Sale’s extension cost Dombrowski his job.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
The loss of draft slot and corresponding bonus pool money loomed large in ownership's decision making with Betts. Those are real, non-monetary, and baseball-related penalties for exceeding the CBT.
That can all be true and Sale's contract can still have little to nothing to do with how the Red Sox approached Betts. They could have had $80M in space under the luxury tax and still not wanted to go 12/360+ on Betts that winter. It's not that unreasonable of a stance for any team to have.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
The loss of draft slot and corresponding bonus pool money loomed large in ownership's decision making with Betts. Those are real, non-monetary, and baseball-related penalties for exceeding the CBT.
They also had to figure out a way to get out from under a significant portion of Price’s deal, which stapling him to Betts accomplished. By the end of Dombrowski’s term, the team had become extremely top heavy in talent / salary.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Sale got nearly $30M AAV in his discounted contract. Seems like a he got a great deal even without the benefit of hindsight given the information we had at the time. I’ve never really understood what upside we felt we were buying. DeGrom got 5/137 around the same time. Cole got 9/324 a year later but was a better pitcher with less durability concerns so that was never Sale’s upside. Really would like to know how much the Sox thought his valuation could grow if his 2019 season proved to be a return to his older self. Maybe he gets a little more AAV and a couple more years? Not sure why you lock in a risky deal to save a little more on the back end.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Sale got nearly $30M AAV in his discounted contract. Seems like a he got a great deal even without the benefit of hindsight given the information we had at the time. I’ve never really understood what upside we felt we were buying. DeGrom got 5/137 around the same time. Cole got 9/324 a year later but was a better pitcher with less durability concerns so that was never Sale’s upside. Really would like to know how much the Sox thought his valuation could grow if his 2019 season proved to be a return to his older self. Maybe he gets a little more AAV and a couple more years? Not sure why you lock in a risky deal to save a little more on the back end.
How exactly was Cole a better pitcher than Sale? If Sale had a 2019 season in line with his typical 2012-2018 seasons he absolutely would have been looking at a Cole like deal that paid him into his late 30s, that's a lot more than a little bit on the back end.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
How exactly was Cole a better pitcher than Sale? If Sale had a 2019 season in line with his typical 2012-2018 seasons he absolutely would have been looking at a Cole like deal that paid him into his late 30s, that's a lot more than a little bit on the back end.
Zero chance given pre-existing concerns about his body type and impact of his violent delivery on his elbow. Sale was never getting 9 years from anybody. Maybe 6-7 years at a higher AAV of a few million more.
 

Manuel Aristides

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2009
224
Do you really think it would be a good thing if the RS had Mookie on the team today with his current contract? I'd pass on that and think that money could be better spent.
I would trade Sale for Mookie right now, and it's not even a difficult decision for me. There are certainly some reasonable concerns about Mookie's contract long term and reasonable people can differ if it's inherently a mistake to take on such a big contract (I tend to agree with you on the point generally, just not on the specific comparison). Probably, yes, there is some alternate third option that would be the *absolute best* way to spend that money, but, I for one would have preferred they'd rolled the dice on Betts. Plus, at least for me, there are some big intangibles in Mookie's favor (personality, home-grown-player) but I suppose that's personal and probably irrelevant.

If ownership wanted to pay Betts, then they would have. They have the money. There is no salary cap. Whether or not they signed Sale to what turned into a disastrous contract has nothing to do with them not signing Betts. Just like the disastrous contract that the game Pablo Sandoval had no bearing on their ability to re-sign Sale.
This has been debated to death so I'll just say that neither one of us know the truth but I personally buy the company line that it was a luxury tax influenced decision, and, in decisions about when and how to exceed luxury tax thresholds, all the nine-figure deals on the books are highly relevant. You're obviously free to disagree, but, was my thinking was in saying it.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Zero chance given pre-existing concerns about his body type and impact of his violent delivery on his elbow. Sale was never getting 9 years from anybody. Maybe 6-7 years at a higher AAV of a few million more.
Agree to disagree. 2018 Chris Sale was the best pitcher in baseball pre injury. He had no real injury history before 2018 and was one of the best pitchers in baseball every year since 2012. Cole was barely above average until he got to Houston, he was only elite for 2 years before signing his massive deal.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
The Mookie vs Sale stuff in this thread is really dumb, because they tried to extend Mookie before they extended Sale, and they offered Mookie a lot more total dollars than what Sale got. Mookie wanted a deal that was far more than what he ended up signing for in LA. They didn't get to choose one or the other, Mookie chose for them unless they wanted to risk losing both of them in free agency for nothing.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Agree to disagree. 2018 Chris Sale was the best pitcher in baseball pre injury. He had no real injury history before 2018 and was one of the best pitchers in baseball every year since 2012. Cole was barely above average until he got to Houston, he was only elite for 2 years before signing his massive deal.
Fair enough. I don’t think he was ever getting 9 years given the obvious warning signs and the delivery. But we clearly don’t see eye to eye there. I will concede that Sale and Cole were comparable talents but bulk of my argument was more on the physical concerns of Sale’s build and ominous signs during 2018 season. In any event, just stinks that it turned out this way. Love watching him pitch when he’s on. And we’ll always have Machado K regardless.
 

TapeAndPosts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2006
580
So in one day, Chris Sale:

1. Disclosed he fractured a rib, and will miss some unspecified number of starts
2. Disclosed he is not vaccinated, and could miss games in Toronto alongside whatever else that status may bring to the team
3. Got SoSH to start arguing about the Mookie Betts trade again

This is real supervillian behavior!