I agree with this sentiment. I never understood the talk about our window closing in 2 years. While we have too many key pieces hitting FA soon to realistically think we’re going to be able to re-up with all of them I have no doubt that the front office will be able to pay up and hold on to a few of those guys.
Who's being dodgy? You've literally spent the winter reading and posting in the same threads I have, where I've already gone on record countless times and with lengthy speculation on those questions and answers. To a point it's already been pointed to me that a few people were getting tired of hearing them, hence any reluctance to go over them once again here in the direct aftermath of something that isn't going to be undone and I don't actually have a direct problem with (again and speaking as the guy who valued Martinez a lot higher then most going in to this off-season, it's hard not to like this contract in itself)
Extending Sale now seems like the next priority, even though it'd mess with his very low AAV to do so. I've moved from being perpetually concerned that he's one pitch away from Tommy John and now believe he may be a freakishly indefatigable Randy Johnson-type. We got no shot at Kershaw.
Yep. I'm firmly in the 2 year window before they need to get really lucky with player development or make the decision to live over the threshold for a while camp, but I just don't care right now. This is an awesome team to go into the season with and JD Martinez is the best hitter this team has brought in through free agency since Papi was DFA'd by the Twins.
Sale was on WEEI this morning and was asked about extending his contract. While he didn’t give a Bryce Harper-like answer, he clearly didn’t want to talk about it. Seems like the standard answer for most players but I noticed he didn’t say anything (at least I didn’t hear it) about preferring to stay in Boston either.
Dodge, dip, duck, dive, and...dodge.
This is a horrible, almost cafardo like notion. Pitchers are notoriously unreliable, and Chris Sale is on team options in this and next year. Right now, he's probably a 7/200 on the market, and I'd doubt you could talk him under 7 years.
What we need to do is focus on rebuilding the farm; something DD demonstrated nicely when building the Marlins from the ground up. I see 2020/21 as potential rebuilding years for the entire pitching staff (depending on what happens with rookies,etc.).
You're not interested in extending Chris Sale?
No, not now. Right now you have sale at 26 million over the next two years. Assuming a 7/200 -ish extension, you're talking about paying him an extra 30-34 million over the next two years, just so that you can have him for 2020/2021 at 25+ million a year. I feel more confident about Sale in 2018-2021 than I do about Sale 2022+. Furthermore, such an extension would reduce the financial flexibility needed to replace the other 60 percent of our starting rotation.
After Price inevitably declines his option, my hope is that the Linsecum-like shadow he casts over the team will serve as a constant reminder as to why you should never backload (in terms of absolute $$$) a contract that includes a player option.
I’d sure Iike to see Sale pitch effectively beyond August before I sign him to a gigantic extension.
It's a time-honored SoSH tradition. A Sox GM could assemble a roster capable of 120 wins and there will still be posters questioning/bemoaning the moves on a variety of levels.
There's a buyout if he opts out? Is that normal? I don't think I've ever seen a team agree to pay a player if the player decides to terminate the contract... Have I just never noticed before or is that actually very odd.
I'm not as optimistic that Price declines his option. He pitched all of 74 innings last year and has been avoiding the inevitable (i.e. replacing the elbow). If his elbow blows out or he fails to pitch effectively, I could see him not opting out; a 33 year old starter who was last effective when he was 30, likely, does not beat a 5/150-ish deal (probably more like 5-100 or 110). With an elbow injury, he may have to take a short-term deal to establish value.
It is odd, I think it is just to manipulate the average value of the contract for luxury tax purposes.
[HEAVY SARCASM] This buyout is just another blatant example of DD's willingness to overpay. Boras honed in on DD's ill-conceived, desperation to add this slow-footed, injury-prone, wrong-side-of-thirty, defensively-deficient, one-dimensional DH at all cost. When JDM inevitably opts out (face it, he NEVER wanted to sign here), I'll be reminding you of how that unprecedented, opt-out buyout hampers the clubs ability to extend the young core!!! [/HEAVY SARCASM]
That's what would make sense, but I don't see how. How does it work differently, for LT purposes, than a more simple 25/25/21.25/19.375/19.375 deal? (Note: I've modified the salaries in yrs 3-5 to allow the same total value/payments after years 2 and 3). Maybe I'm missing something. The only difference seems to be how much they're paying him in yearly salaries.
I assume the buyout is counted as salary in 2020 so that $1.25M/year won't get added back in to their salary for 2018 and 2019.
Didn't this basically happen just last week with Nunez? He has a 2019 player option for $4M, but can decline the option and take $2M instead.
For the purposes of luxury tax calculation, the buyout is included on 2018 and 2019 and not 2020. It works that way for buyouts of team and player options as well. If Martinez opts out after year two, his deal is essentially a 2/50 deal meaning it's a $25M hit for luxury tax calculation per year. Same as if Nunez's option for 2019 is declined, he gets the buyout of $2M and his 2018 AAV is considered $6M ($4M salary + $2M buyout).
Agree, this is the only reason that would make sense to me. The very specific design of this contract and the Nunez contract has me convinced there is some loophole we are unaware of. The buyouts that we typically see are linked to team options. Maybe the CBA has some language that specifies that buyouts get included as its own AAV in the following year in the case of player options / opt-outs. This could potentially save 2M (6M vs 4M) in AAV on Nunez and 1.25M (25M vs 23.75M) in AAV on JDM. Hopefully we can get clear confirmation on this from one of the writers.
Or it's just a little detail concession Boras was forced into making (basically functioning as a built in incentive clause) while trying to both preserve and maximize his client's per/year earning potential, and with the Sox still insisting on keeping the actual guaranteed money involved as low as possible.
I'm excited for the Sox to play Northeastern and BC just so we can stop talking about this damn contract already. Not that we will. But something else to talk about will be nice.
The premise behind not loving the deal depends on one's understanding of player opt-outs, which, for whatever reason, seems to be a very contentious subject on this board.
I like the deal but I'd guess the argument against it would be all the opt outs. If 5/110 was the best deal, why cave in and offer the opt outs? Plus, if he opts out after 2 years, it meant he was really good and the Redsox lost out. If he is bad, they are stuck with him for 5 years. I think those 2 seasons have tremendous value but others tend to disagree.
Hear, hear! (I've never heard/read "holy hopping fuckballs on fire", that's a very nice variation.)
Or the market dictates that he won't get a considerably better deal, regardless of performance. You can look at Tanaka for a similar comparison.
J.D. Martinez contract breakdown. Year 1: $23.75 m Year 2: $23.75 m Buyout if he opts out after Year 2: $2.5 million, bringing total to $50 m if he leaves Year 3: $23.75 m (No buyout if opts out after Y3) Year 4: $19.35 m Year 5: $19.35 m
Yes, and a lot of the option discussion here assumes that the player makes a rational, value-optimizing decision on option-exercise day. That’s a big assumption. It’s not difficult to imagine a situation where JDM has a great two years and decides to not exercise his option and reenter free agency to seek more money. Or where he has a mediocre two years and decides to leave Boston anyway, forgoing guaranteed money.
I think you're looking at it incorrectly. The question isn't opt-out vs no opt-out. The question is JDM with an opt-out or no JDM. Which do you prefer?
Not trying to pick a fight or belabor an argument, but I don’t understand this.
