Red Sox sign David Price

H78

Fists of Millennial Fury!
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,613
Anyone else pissed off we paid 217 for a player who hasn't won a playoff game?
Not pissed off, but definitely thinking long and hard about that.

0-8 in starts. That's not THAT small of a SSS. If it's because he struggles pitching in cold weather, it makes it look even worse.

But...I'm excited. They needed someone who can challenge other teams' frontline starters. I just wonder if for $217 million you could have had Greinke+.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,524
Rogers Park
Or, roughly, $1 million per start.
Well, that's what we're all hoping.

This. Just wondering where the checkbook was for Lester.
I get that Lester is our guy, but Price is a meaningfully more attractive option than Lester. A year younger at the time of the deal, a much better career K/BB ratio, considerably fewer baserunners allowed, he has that one 248 IP, 271 K season that looks like a stat line of RJ's...

Granted, Lester's cheaper.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,638
This isn't actually a debate. They gave value to the player and received no value to themselves (unless he gave them a big discount for the opt-out). It's not a win for the Red Sox.
Its very debatable because everyone sets value differently. Maybe the value calculation was that if Boston didnt give him the opt-out he wouldnt sign with them. So the option then is opt-out or someone else at which point I think Boston got good value
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,319
Twin Cities
Re: opt outs... It's true that the player gets the upside and no downside and the team loses control of a potentially valuable asset while still being on the hook for the downside. But... We mostly fear these contracts because of their duration. Age catches up with everyone eventually. So while Price could be pitching fabulously and an opt out could represent a lost asset, he could also "save" us from his declining years on the back end of the initial deal. In that sense, the opt out could at least work out well for the Sox.

Moreover, people talk about the decision to opt out as though it's black-and-white. It isn't necessarily. Say Price puts up 2.75/225 IP, 3.25/220 IP, and 3.75/205 IP. All good though slightly declining numbers. (Assume peripherals all follow in this slight decline.) Does he opt out? Do we sorta hope he opts out? Maybe. Gray area.

Looking ahead, maybe Edro is coming off his first CYA in 2019 and Espinoza is ready to go all Jose Fernandez on the league. Price opts out but hey, that's ok, cuz what we really want to do is use that money for some in house extensions, or to sign Harper, etc.

If the opt out is what it took to get him to sign, it's worth it. But yeah, the money overall? Mind-numbing.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Price should be great for this team, and I'm glad that DD just went and got his man. I don't really want to get into the Kimbrel deal worthiness again, but you don't make a deal like that and then try to get by with baling wire, hopes, and dreams in the rotation.

I agree it's an overpay with the premium being paid by the fact that JWH wants to be in the playoffs again, now. But, IMO DD showed his hand already, so good on them for executing and being willing to move on if it wasn't going to get done.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,789
Regardless of what you think of the opt out, the value they got was David Price agreeing to come here.
Its very debatable because everyone sets value differently. Maybe the value calculation was that if Boston didnt give him the opt-out he wouldnt sign with them. So the option then is opt-out or someone else at which point I think Boston got good value
This is totally logical. I'm not actually arguing that it's a bad contract (although I do think that, I haven't argued it). It may have made sense to them to give him the opt out vs. whatever their alternatives were (e.g., someone else).

What I am saying is that it's illogical to celebrate that they gave him a player option. It's not a good thing in a vacuum.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,787
Missoula, MT
Its very debatable because everyone sets value differently. Maybe the value calculation was that if Boston didnt give him the opt-out he wouldnt sign with them. So the option then is opt-out or someone else at which point I think Boston got good value
Moreover, the value in the opt out has already been mentioned in that there will be a number of very high profile players with similar opt out clauses having the ability to opt out at the same time.

David Price, a top 5 pitcher in baseball, signed with the Red Sox with an opt out clause. The Red Sox are now contenders the next 3 years. That is much more valuable than signing three #3 starters.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
1,975
If they do deal pitching surplus for prospects this could look even better, but I am all for paying for premier guys. 30 for Price is so much better than 22 for Porcello, 20 for Pablo...Valuing top level players appropriately is an important thing.

Interesting they preferred Price to Greinke though.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
16,738
The opt out benefits both sides. The sox should be pleased if he does so. Older and longer without injury increases the chances of him hitting trouble imo not less.
 

JamieConway

lurker
Dec 1, 2015
7
He's a 5+ WAR starter who averages 200+ innings and hasn't had a bad statistical season (despite Postseason which is obvs. small sample, etc.) He's a top-3 pitcher in the majors for a decade and he's a young 30, turns 31 next august. $31/ year is a good price IMO.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
3,982
If Price performs above expectations for the first 3 years, the opt-out wipes out a favorable contract (which could be traded, if you don't want to gamble on Price staying healthy and effective in his mid-30s). If Price performs below expectations, however, we are stuck with him for 7 years. It's a lose-lose proposition for the club, and the only way it's worth doing is if it brings down the total value of the deal. And I doubt that's the case -- this is a lot more money than Scherzer got on a present-value basis (i.e., applying an appropriate discount factor to Scherzer's deferred money), and there's more free-agent pitching talent available than there has been in years.

This isn't actually a debate. They gave value to the player and received no value to themselves (unless he gave them a big discount for the opt-out). It's not a win for the Red Sox.
Or if it was the difference between signing him or him going elsewhere. Kind of a key point.
 

JamieConway

lurker
Dec 1, 2015
7
He's a 5+ WAR starter who averages 200+ innings and hasn't had a bad statistical season (despite Postseason which is obvs. small sample, etc.) He's a top-3 pitcher in the majors for a decade and he's a young 30, turns 31 next august. $31/ year is a good price IMO.
Meant to say "better part of a decade" and also I was always terrified when he came to Fenway... closest they've had since Pedro.
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Dope
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,137
Providence, RI
Not pissed off, but definitely thinking long and hard about that.

0-8 in starts. That's not THAT small of a SSS. If it's because he struggles pitching in cold weather, it makes it look even worse.

But...I'm excited. They needed someone who can challenge other teams' frontline starters. I just wonder if for $217 million you could have had Greinke+.
It is a small sample size. And his stuff looks to be the same in the playoffs.

Read more here.
 

JamieConway

lurker
Dec 1, 2015
7
It is a small sample size. And his stuff looks to be the same in the playoffs.

Read more here.
Also Grienke's 2 years older and has had injuries and a much less consistent output... also Price has pitched the majority of his career in the limelight of the AL East. I'd gladly take his consistency at the ace spot, than Grienke's streaky brilliance.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,152
Reading this might make you feel better.
Given what happened at the end of both games, with the Rays winning and this Sox losing, this absolute stinker gets overlooked in his big-game failures.

But forget about his past struggles in big games, or his feud with Papi, it's all a fresh start from here.

1. Price
2. Buchholz
3. E-Rod.
4. Porcello
5. Miley

6. Some swing-man (the other Chris Young, Steven Wright, someone like that).

7. Owens (starting at Pawtucket)
8. Johnson (starting at Pawtucket)

With that SP depth, I would rather move Kelly to the pen rather than sign O'Day.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
3,408
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.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
1,780
New Mexico
Love it. I understand that the team carries all the risk when giving a player an opt out but if this front office can learn the lessons that previous opt outs have provided (I.e. - if they opt out, don't sign them again) then this contract might be truly awesome.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
1,998
Scituate, MA
3 year opt out according to Rosenthal.
And my quote from a few days ago...

7/$210 with opt out after 3 years.
2016: $32 mil
2017: $33 mil
2018: $33 mil
2019: $28 mil
2020: $28 mil
2021: $28 mil
2022: $28 mil

New CBA after 2016 right? I'm sure the cap goes up from $189 and probably gets reset regardless. I'm guessing they have little opposition to going well beyond the luxury cap in 2016 if they're considering Price at all.
I'll be dropping the microphone now.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,789
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.
How do you reconcile this line of thinking with losing the ability to trade a pitcher on a below market deal to reduce downside risk? I don't think you can.
 

canderson

Fomenting voting confusion and angst since 2016
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
26,305
Harrisburg, Pa.
I'm fine with this deal simply for the fact this team's pitching sucked. And you're going to have to break the piggy bank to sign the ace we needed.

I however detest David Price and am not sure how to watch his starts without hatewatching.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,648
Maine
Not pissed off, but definitely thinking long and hard about that.

0-8 in starts. That's not THAT small of a SSS. If it's because he struggles pitching in cold weather, it makes it look even worse.

But...I'm excited. They needed someone who can challenge other teams' frontline starters. I just wonder if for $217 million you could have had Greinke+.
His post season innings comprise about 4% of his total MLB innings. It's SSS, plain and simple.

Of his 8 post season starts, four came in domes, two in KC (game time temps of 59 and 70 degrees), one in Boston (65 degrees at game time), and one in Detroit (53 degrees). I don't think it's cold weather related.
 

JamieConway

lurker
Dec 1, 2015
7
So we got arguably one of the top 3 starters in baseball and one of the top 3 closers in baseball without parting with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Edro, Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, or Espinosa. I absolutely love this, crazy money notwithstanding.
Whole heartedly agree... this is a total win, now we just need to get rid of Hanley and Liverpool to pay for it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Or if it was the difference between signing him or him going elsewhere. Kind of a key point.
No one is denying that the opt-out might have made the difference. We're arguing that it's a bad thing for the club -- if you could have signed him for 7/217 without the opt-out, that unequivocally would have been a better deal. Some people were arguing otherwise, and their bad logic was making my head hurt.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,787
Missoula, MT
How do you reconcile this line of thinking with losing the ability to trade a pitcher on a below market deal to reduce downside risk? I don't think you can.
I don't think anyone would ever consider trading a pitcher of this caliber on a below market deal to reduce risk. That is what the opt out clause is for.
 

LesterFan

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2010
11,844
Boston, MA
Keith Law on the deal:
The Red Sox had one overarching need this winter, and it wasn't a closer – it was a legitimate top-of-the-rotation, difference-making starter, preferably one with some history of durability. There were two such pitchers available, and the Red Sox landed the one who doesn't require them to give up their first-round draft pick.

David Price is an ace, regardless of what you may have heard about his performances in October; his regular-season body of work tells an accurate story. He's a five-win starter who has reached 200 innings in five of six full seasons as a big leaguer, who hasn't posted an ERA above 3.50 in any of those seasons, and who may very well have been the best starter in the American League in 2015. The Red Sox get him at the peak of his career, with no immediate warning signs that he's going to slide any time soon.
The $31 million AAV on this deal is quite reasonable for one of the highest-revenue clubs in win-now mode acquiring a five-win pitcher who has had years where he's been worth over six wins, and while he'll likely decline over the course of the deal, he has the control and mixture of offspeed weapons to potentially weather any gradual loss of velocity as he gets into his 30s. Boston's farm system is still very strong, but it's much deeper in bats than in arms, and this deal papers over that minor deficiency while allowing them to keep the 12th overall pick in next June's draft, assuming they don't sign a free agent who does have compensation attached. It's expensive, and carries the risk that all starting pitchers carry, but it's the player the Red Sox needed most out of all available free agents.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=4549
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,319
Twin Cities
So we got arguably one of the top 3 starters in baseball and one of the top 3 closers in baseball without parting with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Edro, Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, or Espinosa. I absolutely love this, crazy money notwithstanding.
Absolutely correct. The team is massively improved in the near term and the organization's future remains super strong. Our fears the DD would destroy the farm AND deal X or Betts just to avoid paying big $$$ to get a stud SP were for naught. The future is crimson colored, and it starts today!
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
How do you reconcile this line of thinking with losing the ability to trade a pitcher on a below market deal to reduce downside risk? I don't think you can.
Short of a Marlins-like situation, trading a player at that moment wouldn't happen in the real world. The Dodgers would never trade Greinke right now if he had no opt out, but given that he does, their best move may be to let him go, get the pick, and reallocate the money elsewhere.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,789
I don't think anyone would ever consider trading a pitcher of this caliber on a below market deal to reduce risk. That is what the opt out clause is for.
So basically your argument is the opt-out clause is to save the team from themselves? Not sure if serious....

If you are...how do we save them from using the exact same line of thinking about how much they need that player on their roster as the justification for giving the player more money in free agency?

Is the argument that it's better PR for teams to not re-sign a player than it is to trade one? Therefore they include it as a super secret way of maybe parting with their star before he's too old but not having as much pressure from the fanbase? I guess that's interesting, but it's not actually a point anyone here has articulated.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
This is my initial reaction:

Price:Greinke::Crawford:Holliday.

There's no doubt he addresses a need, but given the excess of lefties, his previous beefs with Boston, and the size of the contract, my gut is feeling some parallels between this and when they signed Crawford. It fills the need, but is it the right fit compared to the other available options? Only time will tell.

At the very least, DD is getting shit done and focusing entirely on the biggest needs of the major league roster, which is refreshing.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
8,323
Norwalk, CT
I'm beaming. There are reasons to hate this, but this is the guy the Red Sox needed badly. After wishcasting Porcello and Miley last offseason, it is a beautiful thing to go into 2016 knowing we don't have to try to explain why we think David Price will pitch well, he will pitch well because he's a really, really good pitcher. I'd go so far as to say had they thrown a pile of money at any other starting pitching free agent (maybe Greinke aside who is such an extraordinary longshot to sign here) I would have probably lingered on the downside.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,276
From a talent perspective, Price is obviously a welcome addition. Concern would be a few bad starts lead him into nasty exchanges on social media with some troglodyte fans, and then being the new ace in Boston deteriorates into a claustrophobia-inducing, unpleasant experience.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
So basically your argument is the opt-out clause is to save the team from themselves?

Is the argument that it's better PR for teams to not re-sign a player than it is to trade one?
Yes and yes.

At the very least, it's a lot more good for the player than it is bad for the team.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,615
AZ
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.
This makes no sense to me. The supposed upside to the team is that the player wants to walk away and the team wants him to? Can't any team and any player in that circumstance just agree to a walk away? I can't think of too many circumstances, if ever, where a long-term contract at X point contract is viewed by the player to be stiffing him but the team thinks it's an overpay. Name me a single circumstance like that in MLB -- a free agent qualified player who would like to be out from under his contract to sign elsewhere and a team that wishes he would. Maybe there is one, but I can't think of it. And if there were, wouldn't they just agree to a walkaway? And if some other team really values the player more than his current contract, isn't he easy to trade?

So, the "upside" to the team seems to be this hypothetical circumstance where a player doesn't really know the market, and makes a moronic decision. That won't happen. The chance that Price will leave even if his market value is less than 4/127 is zero.

The opt out has zero benefit to the Red Sox today. Is it true that he might exercise it, and thereafter not perform to a 4/127 level, leading the Sox to, in hindsight, say "phew". Of course. But that is saying a much different thing. In three years, Price either will be a 4/127+ player or he won't. If he is, he will leave, which is bad for the Sox (or neutral at best). If he isn't, he will stay. Also bad. Maybe the market will be wrong in hindsight, but that doesn't make it good now. Otherwise, why not give all

Edit: premature post. Last sentence should say give all players the I-hope-he-takes-it opt out?
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Dope
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,137
Providence, RI
This is my initial reaction:

Price:Greinke::Crawford:Holliday.

There's no doubt he addresses a need, but given the excess of lefties, his previous beefs with Boston, and the size of the contract, my gut is feeling some parallels between this and when they signed Crawford. It fills the need, but is it the right fit compared to the other available options? Only time will tell.

At the very least, DD is getting shit done and focusing entirely on the biggest needs of the major league roster, which is refreshing.
What do the lefties have to do with anything? It's not like a line up where you can have too many lefties. Good pitchers are good pitchers, and his beefs with Boston now mean nothing. He's a Red Sox now.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
SoSH Member
False. The opt-out was obviously regrettable. They re-signed him for more. Edit: You see? They wanted him on his old contract but they weren't able to keep him at his old contract. They regretted it then and they regret it even more now.

Plus what Maufman said about the trade value that is lost.

This isn't actually a debate. They gave value to the player and received no value to themselves (unless he gave them a big discount for the opt-out). It's not a win for the Red Sox.
Are you drunk? There is obvious offensive value, no matter what it costs on paper. Which is the whole point of signing a top of the rotation FA pitcher. We lose no pick, and at worst we are on the hook for 7 years.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,787
Missoula, MT
So basically your argument is the opt-out clause is to save the team from themselves? Not sure if serious....

If you are...how do we save them from using the exact same line of thinking about how much they need that player on their roster as the justification for giving the player more money in free agency?

Is the argument that it's better PR for teams to not re-sign a player than it is to trade one? Therefore they include it as a super secret way of maybe parting with their star before he's too old but not having as much pressure from the fanbase? I guess that's interesting, but it's not actually a point anyone here has articulated.
Unless Price is injured, the team has no reason to believe he won't opt out. Price has no injury history, no declining tendencies and no reason to think he won't be worth the $93M in his first 3 years. I see no reason to think he won't opt out for one last big contract. If you want to see it as the team saving itself from itself, go ahead. I see it as natural player tendency to secure one last big deal.

I also see no logic in thinking 2/217 with no opt-out is a better team deal than the current contract.