Quit being reasonable. Think of what DD had to give up during negotiations to get that clause included.
Red Sox sign David Price
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
3 of your 5 starters are lefties, and so are your two first backup options. Makes it easier for teams to stack their lineups and platoons against you. It's not the biggest deal, but I'd prefer a little more balance, especially when one of those RHP is Clay Buchholz.
And you say that his beefs are over, but you don't know if there may be any kind of lingering thing there or how he'll react to the first blow up. None of us do. That's all I'm saying, it's a variable, and I can see the parallel between the Crawford thing.
As I stated, it absolutely fills the need. We just don't know if it's the perfect fit compared to the other potential signings.
I'm not drunk. But you might be. Either that or you can't/don't read.
It's been made abundantly clear (by me and maufman) that we're talking the value of player option and not the value of getting David Price.
But thanks for your contribution.
It seems like some of this discussion is boiling down to arguing whether the opt-out is good for the team or bad. I don't think I was arguing for either of those, but rather it's not likely to be terrible. Is it that hard to reinvest $32m in another pitcher? Particularly in that year when Kershaw, Harvey, Fernandez might all be on the market?
Interesting. Price was expecting to sign with the Cardinals before the Red Sox increased their offer.
Here is a thought exercise about the opt-out. What would you pay in AAV to have Price for only 3 years (i.e. automatic opt-out)? What do you think Price would accept?
Everything about this deal makes sense, but, like amarshal2, I'm worried about Price in Boston. Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez never seemed to settle in here, and everything about Price suggests he's an emotional guy who may not deal well with the Boston media and/or idiot fans. The fact that he was apparently all but pitching for St. Louis before the Sox swooped in only adds to my concern.
On the plus side, he has every incentive to kill himself for the next three years, make it work, then opt out and head to the NL for even longer/bigger money.
Let's not start any rumors about his love of antiquarian books, please.
On the plus side, he has every incentive to kill himself for the next three years, make it work, then opt out and head to the NL for even longer/bigger money.
Let's not start any rumors about his love of antiquarian books, please.
This is largely what I think the team feels today. Again, I see no reason the team doesn't think Price will think he is worth the 4/$127 after this first three years and opt-out. At that time, the team needs may very well be much different than where the team currently stands and use of that cash, either on another big name player who opted out or whatever, is a better use of the cash.
Seems to me that evolution of rosters and quickly changing market needs are driving the uptick in use of opt-outs. I still feel it's player driven in that players will naturally feel their worth on the open market to other teams. We have been given no reason to feel otherwise with players who have opted out.
I don't think folks are giving the Price opt-out enough of a nuanced look. Yes, no doubt it provides a lot of insurance on Price's end. But it also has potential positives from the Red Sox end too. The risk these 7 year deals isn't evenly distributed, it's concentrated on the back part of this contract. If his career plays out like people and systems project he does well for the Red Sox, opts out, cashes in on another pay day, and that latter contract gets the true decline years. It's an interesting gamble for the Red Sox in that the opt out actually gives them a chance of ending up with 3 of his best years and none of his true decline years.
Just spitballing here, but maybe Dombrowski and the Red Sox know and understand Price's personality better than a message board?
If the deal gets a ring, it's not an overpay.
No guarantees, but you have to like the shift in the probabilities today.
No guarantees, but you have to like the shift in the probabilities today.
Gonzalez was a 6.9 WAR (bRef) player in his first season in Boston, best of his career. Baseball people aren't expressing caution about Price like I seem to recall re Crawford. There's always a chance it goes badly but not much evidence at this point.
I agree with that. If he is so great that we're bummed not to have a mid30s pitcher for 4/127, it will have been a heck of a ride. Also, we get an exclusive period while he's under contract to try to renegotiate. The big risk here is he isn't worth $30m plus on the back ensd. But that's inherent in the deal. It's not the opt out that adds to that risk.
There's also the scenario where the pitcher exercises the opt out and the Red Sox give him a big raise, as the MFY did with Sabathia. This makes the most sense if the Sox are planning to let him walk in 3 years.
That's a fair point, but I recall the Sox insisting that Crawford was a great fit after they had him followed by a P.I. They also claimed Edgar Renteria wasn't going to have a problem here.
How do you think he will respond to CHB after he calls him a fraud?
http://www.blessyouboys.com/2015/7/24/9037223/detroit-tigers-david-price-lynn-henning-twitter-war
I think the supposed upside to the team is when the player wants to walk away, the team does not want him to, but he does, and then starts sucking. The team side-steps the decline while having gotten his best three years, and has money to spend on someone else, who is more likely to perform well than a 34 year-old pitcher.
I think the opt-out is fine. Because if he does opt out, it means he's pitched well, and everyone will be happy(ish), and hopefully the team had developed a plan to replace him. It's only truly awful if he's sucked, but if he sucks and there were no opt-out, they'd be screwed anyway.
worrying about too many lefties is like worrying about signing Manny Ramirez because Dante Bichette and Chris Stynes are righties.
Yes, I am in this camp as well. Price doesn't opt out in 3 years because he necessarily thinks he can beat the $31 million AAV, he opts out in 3 years because he thinks he can get another 6-7 year deal. If he can get 6 years $165m, that would be better than the 4/$124 more than likely being that year 5 and 6 would be his age 39/40 years. If he declines in years 5-7 of the initial deal, it would work out for the Red Sox not to have been tied up with all that money. There is no value TODAY for the Red Sox with the opt-out, but that doesn't mean it can't work out in their favor over the course of the initial 7 years of this contract. I think that is all people are trying to say.
Either way, LOVE the signing. Price, Kimbrel . . . . . . Castillo/Bradley/Betts. . . . . love it when a plan comes together.
If you believe at all in the value of a future contract motivating a player to push himself, then the opt-out has some value: it focuses Price on a 3-year horizon, rather than him feeling "Hey, this is it, I've gotten the biggest payday I can and that's that." Not sure I believe that, but whatever.
More like signing an in-prime Manny Ramirez when an in-prime David Ortiz is also a free agent and your lineup is already stacked with righties, but hey, whatever.
It isn't lose-lose if you look at it from a risk perspective. You can't predict catastrophic risk, but the opt-out helps reduce that scenario from occurring. As it's difficult to evaluate a deal at signing, the effect of an opt-out exists in multiple scenarios, not just the two mentioned above.
1)If Price performs below expectations, the opt-out has no effect on the deal, and therefore including it didn't make things worse.
2)If Price performs at or above expectations through the seven years, the opt out is bad for the team. If I were betting, I wouldn't bet on this scenario.
3-1000?) If Price performs at or above expectations through the first few years, but declines through the remaining four, then the opt-out may be good/neutral/bad depending on the severity of the decline.
1001-2001) If Price somehow suffers a catastrophic injury in the first few years, but recovers to perform at or above expectations over the remaining four. Price doesn't take the opt-out (see #1). Again, whether the opt-out is present has no real effect on the outcome
Assuming the current CBA rules are basically the same in three years, the fact that Price is a commodity doesn't mean he'd be available for most markets. I'm not sure many teams would be willing to spend 30 million of payroll on a single pitcher; I'm sure the teams that are willing would be concerned about paying 124 million/year for a 33-37 year old pitcher.
EDIT: I wouldn't say an opt-out is win-win, more win-neutral.
Last edited:
Doesn't this logic make it a "save us from our future selves!" clause?
The opt-out is not *as awful* as it might seem because it likely reduces the amount of $ you have to give him up front, because it's valuable to the player. It has some paradoxical benefit of providing some other mechanism for getting out of the possible bad years of a contract with this possibility that you get to sign a player to an at- or below-market deal for 3 years only to have him become overvalued in the last few years. But if he really were overvalued, you could trade him and get actual value rather than him walking away.
It's also possible that the opt-out was useful in selling the deal to ownership, with the theory that if he performs as expected (or even slightly worse) you're likely to be on the hook for 3 years and not 7, even if you are leaving some value on the table in year 4.
But the opt out isn't good. You'd always want this deal to have no opt out at the same cost.
Isn't the possibility of his walking away while getting "nothing" in return mitigated to a degree by the opportunity to give him a QO and recoup a draft pick if he leaves? Granted, the CBA and thus the QO system might be vastly different in three years, but if it isn't, there isn't a scenario in which they get absolutely nothing if he leaves.
It's a lot of money. That's the tax for two straight lousy seasons. I love the signing. We are getting the best available starter entering his prime. Just what this young, dynamic team needs.
The persistent disconnect over opt-outs seems to be around the distinction between how much additional potential value it adds at the time of signing for the player (which is substantial), vs. the probability that it results in an optimal outcome for the team (which is certainly non-zero). Everyone seems to agree on the possible different outcomes, but we aren't laying them out:
1.) player does well, opts out, signs with other team does well [winner: player] (JD Drew)
2.) player does well, opts out, signs with other team, does poorly [winner: team] (AJ Burnett)
3.) player does well, opts out, signs with original team, does well [winner: player]
4.) player does well, opts out, signs with original team, does poorly [winner: player] (CC Sabathia)
5.) player does poorly-as expected, doesn't opt out, stays with original team, does well [winner: draw/team]
6.) player does poorly-as expected, doesn't opt out, stays with original team, does poorly-as expected [winner: draw/player]
Now, I am going to assume that we don't need to list every combination, unless someone can justify inclusions of the situations where a player does poorly and opts out (never happened, shouldn't happen if he has an agent), or where a player does well and doesn't opt out. We don't have a huge number of examples to draw on here (but I used some examples above, because only a handful of players had received this contract clause as of 2014, and while in the past year they have become a little more common, we haven't gotten to see the results of those yet.
So basically, out of the six most likely scenarios, the team wins 1.5 of them, the player wins 3.5, and 1 is a draw. Now, we can argue the probabilities of those outcomes, and if we knew that we could create an expected value matrix, but that seems to be the situation we are facing as of today. The opt out provides a likely additional benefit to the player at the time of signing, but the game theory side of things creates possibilities (even if slim) for the team to end up benefiting more in the long run, or at least transferring the downside risk to another team.
1.) player does well, opts out, signs with other team does well [winner: player] (JD Drew)
2.) player does well, opts out, signs with other team, does poorly [winner: team] (AJ Burnett)
3.) player does well, opts out, signs with original team, does well [winner: player]
4.) player does well, opts out, signs with original team, does poorly [winner: player] (CC Sabathia)
5.) player does poorly-as expected, doesn't opt out, stays with original team, does well [winner: draw/team]
6.) player does poorly-as expected, doesn't opt out, stays with original team, does poorly-as expected [winner: draw/player]
Now, I am going to assume that we don't need to list every combination, unless someone can justify inclusions of the situations where a player does poorly and opts out (never happened, shouldn't happen if he has an agent), or where a player does well and doesn't opt out. We don't have a huge number of examples to draw on here (but I used some examples above, because only a handful of players had received this contract clause as of 2014, and while in the past year they have become a little more common, we haven't gotten to see the results of those yet.
So basically, out of the six most likely scenarios, the team wins 1.5 of them, the player wins 3.5, and 1 is a draw. Now, we can argue the probabilities of those outcomes, and if we knew that we could create an expected value matrix, but that seems to be the situation we are facing as of today. The opt out provides a likely additional benefit to the player at the time of signing, but the game theory side of things creates possibilities (even if slim) for the team to end up benefiting more in the long run, or at least transferring the downside risk to another team.
In every scenario with an opt out, he player is a winner. Sometimes, the team lucks out and ends up a winner, too. It is more likely, however, that the team ends up harmed by the opt out.
Pokey there is no scenario you listed where the player ends up worse off.
Pokey there is no scenario you listed where the player ends up worse off.
From your lips to DD's ears. Iwakuma would look great in Boston behind a Price-led staff.
Why is 1 only in the player's favor? There's a pretty good chance the team takes the money saved from the opt-out and invests in another player, who could be better or worse. Also, does the team get a draft pick in this situation? What if that draft pick turns into an impact player? I think we're starting to repeat ourselves; IMHO the answer to all this is, there are a lot of possibilities and we won't be able to judge the wisdom of the opt-out for quite a while.
The point is that it takes a sure thing with value out of the team's hands (an undervalued player) in return for the possibility of something else that might cost even more or be non existent.
It's why teams seldom trade good players on good contracts for prospects unless they absolutely have to.
The opt out, right now (as opposed to six hours ago) is a negative for the Red Sox. It will certainly work to Price's financial advantage, and almost certainly work to the Red Sox' detriment.
This is dead on. Performance matters. Being able to benefit from performance is a tremendous incentive. Beyond being the cost of doing business and necessary to close the deal, I would bet DD did not worry about the contractual downside as he would have had that anyway without the opt out. Since there is no incremental risk, the bottom line is that if this contributes to maximizing three years worth of performance at the potential loss of upside in years 4-7 then I am sure he signed off on it without blinking.
Who cares if the player wins if the team does too? In that scenario, you got three great years from Price then let him walk and can redistribute those resources towards someone younger while completely being off the hook for the decline years.
This is just like the Kimbrel trade thread all over again. You don't have to "win" everything so long as you're addressing needs. So Price opts out and pitches fantastically for someone else. Awesome. If I'm the Sox, I don't care, because I got my three years of value.
It's easy to like the signing today - after all it's not our money and he makes the team better immediately - but let's not pretend there is no potential downside to this deal. I'm happy to watch the Sox for the next three years and keep my fingers crossed in 2019.
Premium players are becoming harder and harder to obtain.
Premium players are becoming harder and harder to obtain.
How about player opts out / misreads the market and signs for a less lucrative contract? Can you say Jody Reed?
This exactly. Opt-outs are never good for the team...The only way they will keep him is if they want to lose him. The only way they will lose him is if they want to keep him. That's how optouts work.
Well, I guess we're going to have to find something new to argue about.
Greinke battled Social Anxiety Disorder for a while, and missed an entire season because of it playing for Kansas City, of all places. While it does appear he's at least improved with the help of medication, which he's been open about, I'm not sure he's the guy you want to bring up about being able to handle the Boston atmosphere. I think he's about as risky as they come in that department; LA is not Boston.
We're discussing who benefits from the opt out. So stating where the player benefits when the team does not is, well, kind of relevant.
If Price pitches well for three years and opts out, that's great. But in that scenario, the opt out works to the Red Sox disadvantage.
This isn't a subjective judgment of the contract, just a statement of fact.
Well, the only sure thing taken from the team will be his past value. We're talking his age 34 and up seasons, which even right beforehand we won't be able to predict with great assurance.
Checking the history books for "emotional Cy Young winning pitchers who joined the Red Sox while still in their primes" gives me one Pedro Martinez.
I'll take Pedro Martinez for $31million/year please, Dave D.
Excellent points.
The opt out acts as a type of potential bonus the player can earn, the threshold for that bonus being set by the "market" in three years time, not any specific stat or award category. And the kicker is it might not even be the team that pays out that defacto bonus.
No more risk than the emotional guy who's openly bitched about both Boston and it's players in recent years.
Also, for the people saying you either lose your ace or give him a raise, that's not quite the entire statement. It's lose your ace, and his payroll commitment, and his decline years, or give him a raise. Sometimes folding pocket aces is the right move.
Frickin fantastic signing. Price is a pitbull. Just the kind of pitcher we need. The East is ours.
But right now, the Red Sox are on the hook for his 34+ years. The only way he doesn't opt out is if he is performing at or under his contract value in 3 years.
The Red Sox have already made a bet on those and 34+ seasons, and your argument is "it would be great if Price does really well for three years, opts out, and then sucks." But that seems like a tight needle to thread.
Look, I hope it works out. I'm glad they signed him, opt out or no. But the opt out is a bit of a bummer.
I'm sorry for joining those making you crazy, but it is not a lose lose situation. Certainly a player focused concession, but of the recent opt-outs taken, the players have NOT outperformed either the opted out, or the new larger contract. Just because someone else might give a 33 year old pitcher more than 4/127 doesn't mean that losing out on paying 4/127 for a 33 year old pitcher is a bad thing.
So it can be to Price's advantage (the primary benefit) and ALSO be a positive to the Red Sox. The negative isn't when he is has performed well enough at 33 to think he can get more years or dollars and take it. The negative for the Red Sox is only if he takes another team's contract after a great three years and then ALSO performs above 4/127 over the first years of the contract.
*The obvious comp is Sabathia who opted out leaving 4/92 on the table to get 5/122 instead. Sabathia had a good season followed by three bad, for an average of 1.1 WAR over those four years. The Yankees getting out of the 4/92 was nothing but a positive for them in hindsight. Their mistake was signing him to a 5/122 after they had gotten.
*With A-Rod, he benefitted clearly like Sabathia, and he opted out of 3/72 for seasons in which he produced 15 WAR, so the Yankees would have preferred to keep him, but he wasn't any crazy bargain at 5M/WAR at the 2008-2010 rates. The Yankees mistake was again, not losing the opt out years, but giving him a 10 year deal once he was a free agent.
*AJ Burnett opted out of 2/24 in 2008, much to his advantage, but ALSO to the team that lost him's advantage as he produced zero net WAR in those two seasons he would have earned 24M.
*JD Drew opted out of 3/33 for 2007-2009. He then had 9 WAR over those seasons so falsely assuming equivalency, the Dodgers lost out on the right to pay 3.6M/WAR over those years.
So in those four examples, all four clearly benefitted the player, but the two pitchers ALSO benefitted the team losing the end of the contract, and the two hitters within the range of being a wash.
No matter how great a 3/90 player Price is from 2016-2018, chances are that he won't be a 4/127 player from 2019 to 2022 and certainly unlikely to exceed that, EVEN IF Price and another team think he is.
So while Price definitely prefers the contract with an opt out, I don't know that I actually like it less with the opt out than without. If he is amazing for three years as I expect, we might all be pulling out our hair momentarily in 2019 when he is starting his brand new 5/170 with the Angels, but when we look back on that opt out after 2022 we are likely to be happy he chose to opt out. I would rather have a 6/185 deal if that were possible (It wasn't), but I think there are very reasonable options why him opting out will prove to benefit both him AND the Red Sox at the expense of a team willing to over pay for the decline of an amazing 33 year old.
So the guy with a diagnosed serious anxiety disorder is not at a bigger risk than a guy who...has said bad things about David Ortiz and Boston fans? I'm not really seeing the connect here, other than maybe you're comparing him to Crawford because they both wore the Tampa uniform.
If you don't like Price, I get it. I don't like him either. But extending that to him not being a fit in Boston, which is what it seems to me you're doing, isn't entirely logical. And if he pitches well, I will learn to get over my distaste for his stupid Drake-like face. I even liked John Lackey for a little while there.
Because it's unheard of that age 34-37 pitchers can lose it? I don't think it's quite the tight needle many here believe it is.
Think about it this way: what would the general opinions on opt-outs be if the Yankees hadn't outbid themselves for CC and A-Rod? They let both of those guys walk, and I bet the views are a wee bit different around these parts.