SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Dec 22, 2014 13:45:41 GMT -5
I understand that an OPT-OUT is generally viewed as player friendly (and it is) but I think a case could be made for a team like BOSTON finding value in an opt-out as well. The older a player gets, the more of a risk they are of seeing decreased production. I've heard numbers thrown around the average player loses .5 WAR per season, I'm not sure what the average decrease is and I'm sure it's not linear. However the risk is there and always growing, If you sign a player to a long term contract and he opts out there is potential upside for the team there.
If a guy opts out, then odds are you've done very well for yourself during those several years. Let him walk and take more money, if you can view the back end of any contract more risky then just let the player walk every time. The end result, is a team paying FA price for a guy for 3-4 years instead of 6-7+
The biggest downside is that the guy stinks at the get-go and you bare that risk regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Dec 22, 2014 13:50:38 GMT -5
Again, just to make sure this isn't another linguistic issue: An "opt-out" generally refers to a player option to terminate the contact and become a free agent. I believe that the converse would typically be referred to as a "buy-out." Right. I realize that the player gets to make the decision, I just challenge the notion that there isn't any upside for the team as well. Essentially, you're gambling that Scherzer will continue to pitch at an elite level for the first several years and exercise the opt out in the hope of another huge payday. If he does, then you've gotten an ace on a short-term contract (would anyone say no to signing Scherzer for, say, four years at $26-27 million per if we could?) and then let someone else pay for his mid/late 30's; at worst, he's a bust early on and you're stuck with the whole thing, but again, you'd be in that situation whether you offered the opt-out clause or not. I don't see the downside for the team there...if anyone doesn't think that's a gamble worth taking, then they probably shouldn't be thinking about signing someone like Scherzer long-term at all.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 14:30:26 GMT -5
The only possible value or upside to the team for a player opt-out would be a possibly lower AAV. I doubt it happens to any great extent. Other than that, it's all for the player. How about this instead? A freakin 4 year deal with no options. No, the player would never go for it because he wants the extra guaranteed $100 million if he sucks or is always hurt.
The opt-out gives all risk to the team and none to the player.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 22, 2014 14:39:01 GMT -5
Oh god please not this inane opt-out discussion again.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Dec 22, 2014 15:47:21 GMT -5
The only possible value or upside to the team for a player opt-out would be a possibly lower AAV. I doubt it happens to any great extent. Other than that, it's all for the player. How about this instead? A freakin 4 year deal with no options. No, the player would never go for it because he wants the extra guaranteed $100 million if he sucks or is always hurt. The opt-out gives all risk to the team and none to the player. So you don't think the possibility of turning a seven or eight year contract into a three or four year contract would be valuable to the team? Obviously there's a chance that happens, and a chance it doesn't, but the team's risk is no greater with the opt-out than it is without it. If you want to argue against paying Scherzer X years/dollars in the first place because it might turn out terribly, then that's a valid opinion, but whatever your top offer is, I don't see the case against giving Scherzer the same offer with an opt-out clause; you're in the same boat either way if the worst-case scenario unfolds, but in the best-case scenario, you get 3-4 elite years from the player and then get out of the riskiest years of your commitment (and if you don't think Scherzer, or any other player, is capable of staying healthy and performing at a high level at least in the early years of the deal, I would question why you're contemplating signing them to a long-term deal to begin with). It's true that including the opt out greatly decreases the risk to the player, but I don't see how that should matter from the team's perspective. This is the last post I'll make on the subject as I just feel like I'm repeating myself...but if there's something I'm missing here, I'd definitely like to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 22, 2014 15:48:42 GMT -5
I don't think anyone goes to $200M for Scherzer, but I'd go all-in on him. For starters, an ace is the biggest concern for this team at the moment.If that's the biggest concern for a team, then that's a pretty damn good team. The Sox are currently in a great position to make the playoffs (especially with a weakened AL East). They have 4-5 months to see what they have in this pitching staff and can make a trade if necessary to acquire that "Ace" in July. Why go all out and pay ~$200 million to someone who will maybe win this team 2-3 more regular season games? Scherzer projects for a 3.9 fWar in 2015, and Joe Kelly (our most likely #5 starter) projects for 1.1 fWar. If the only thing the Sox need is Scherzer to make the playoffs, they are perfectly capable of of making it without him. Don't lock up long term money for an unnecessary contract. I think this is a point that people aren't focusing on enough ... there are quite a few good pitchers going into their walk year this year, and there's a good chance one or more of them will be available at a lower cost than, say, Hamels now in terms of prospects and at a minimal cost in terms of money. That will give the Sox time to figure out if any of their guys are making a leap in effectiveness (possible with Porcello in particular), or maybe that Buchholz will finally have a good, healthy season (haha!), etc, etc, or even if someone like Rodriguez has the makings to be a rotation horse for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 22, 2014 16:04:03 GMT -5
If that's the biggest concern for a team, then that's a pretty damn good team. The Sox are currently in a great position to make the playoffs (especially with a weakened AL East). They have 4-5 months to see what they have in this pitching staff and can make a trade if necessary to acquire that "Ace" in July. Why go all out and pay ~$200 million to someone who will maybe win this team 2-3 more regular season games? Scherzer projects for a 3.9 fWar in 2015, and Joe Kelly (our most likely #5 starter) projects for 1.1 fWar. If the only thing the Sox need is Scherzer to make the playoffs, they are perfectly capable of of making it without him. Don't lock up long term money for an unnecessary contract. I think this is a point that people aren't focusing on enough ... there are quite a few good pitchers going into their walk year this year, and there's a good chance one or more of them will be available at a lower cost than, say, Hamels now in terms of prospects and at a minimal cost in terms of money. That will give the Sox time to figure out if any of their guys are making a leap in effectiveness (possible with Porcello in particular), or maybe that Buchholz will finally have a good, healthy season (haha!), etc, etc, or even if someone like Rodriguez has the makings to be a rotation horse for the next few years. I'm not doubting that there will be pitchers available at the deadline, my feeling is that even in July, a top of the rotation starter will cost more than a third round pick. On top of that, you won't get anything back for him if he walks, and to retain him, you'd be shelling out a big contract. If you are giving out a big money deal, why wouldn't you minimize the cost in assets and sign that pitcher as a free agent?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2014 16:05:07 GMT -5
The only possible value or upside to the team for a player opt-out would be a possibly lower AAV. I doubt it happens to any great extent. Other than that, it's all for the player. How about this instead? A freakin 4 year deal with no options. No, the player would never go for it because he wants the extra guaranteed $100 million if he sucks or is always hurt. The opt-out gives all risk to the team and none to the player. So you don't think the possibility of turning a seven or eight year contract into a three or four year contract would be valuable to the team? Obviously there's a chance that happens, and a chance it doesn't, but the team's risk is no greater with the opt-out than it is without it. If you want to argue against paying Scherzer X years/dollars in the first place because it might turn out terribly, then that's a valid opinion, but whatever your top offer is, I don't see the case against giving Scherzer the same offer with an opt-out clause; you're in the same boat either way if the worst-case scenario unfolds, but in the best-case scenario, you get 3-4 elite years from the player and then get out of the riskiest years of your commitment (and if you don't think Scherzer, or any other player, is capable of staying healthy and performing at a high level at least in the early years of the deal, I would question why you're contemplating signing them to a long-term deal to begin with). It's true that including the opt out greatly decreases the risk to the player, but I don't see how that should matter from the team's perspective. This is the last post I'll make on the subject as I just feel like I'm repeating myself...but if there's something I'm missing here, I'd definitely like to hear it. You're ignoring the possibility that the pitcher goes on to sign a contract with another team and pitches well enough that the first team wished it still had him on his original contract. By giving the player an opt-out (and, in your example, not receiving anything back for it) the team has now unnecessarily lost that player's services at a discounted rate. An opt-out means that the only chance of a player finishing his contract is if he's not worth the money in the years post opt-out (or perhaps that he mis-reads the market for his services). You're assuming that the possibilities are a) player opts out, goes to another team, and wouldn't have been worth his contract, b) player doesn't opt out, pitches well enough to be worth his contract, or c) player doesn't opt out, isn't worth his contract, but you knew this was a possibility when he signed; this ignores d) player opts out, goes to another team, pitches well enough that he was worth his contract in those final years, e) player opts out (or threatens to opt-out), re-signs (or signs an extension) for more money and/or years, and pitches poorly enough that he wouldn't have been good under either contract, f) player opts out (or threatens to opt-out), re-signs (or signs an extension) for more money and/or years, and pitches only well enough to justify his old deal but not his new one, or g) player opts out (or threatens to opt-out), re-signs (or signs an extension) for more money and/or years, and pitches well enough to justify both deals (but you would still have gained more value under his original deal).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 16:07:08 GMT -5
The only possible value or upside to the team for a player opt-out would be a possibly lower AAV. I doubt it happens to any great extent. Other than that, it's all for the player. How about this instead? A freakin 4 year deal with no options. No, the player would never go for it because he wants the extra guaranteed $100 million if he sucks or is always hurt. The opt-out gives all risk to the team and none to the player. So you don't think the possibility of turning a seven or eight year contract into a three or four year contract would be valuable to the team?Obviously there's a chance that happens, and a chance it doesn't, but the team's risk is no greater with the opt-out than it is without it. If you want to argue against paying Scherzer X years/dollars in the first place because it might turn out terribly, then that's a valid opinion, but whatever your top offer is, I don't see the case against giving Scherzer the same offer with an opt-out clause; you're in the same boat either way if the worst-case scenario unfolds, but in the best-case scenario, you get 3-4 elite years from the player and then get out of the riskiest years of your commitment (and if you don't think Scherzer, or any other player, is capable of staying healthy and performing at a high level at least in the early years of the deal, I would question why you're contemplating signing them to a long-term deal to begin with). It's true that including the opt out greatly decreases the risk to the player, but I don't see how that should matter from the team's perspective. This is the last post I'll make on the subject as I just feel like I'm repeating myself...but if there's something I'm missing here, I'd definitely like to hear it. No, not at the cost of being stuck owing an extra $100 million for someone who provides zero value. What would be valuable is signing a 3-4 year contract or giving a mutual opt-out or a player offering to sign for $5 million less per season in exchange for the opt-out.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 22, 2014 16:13:33 GMT -5
I think this is a point that people aren't focusing on enough ... there are quite a few good pitchers going into their walk year this year, and there's a good chance one or more of them will be available at a lower cost than, say, Hamels now in terms of prospects and at a minimal cost in terms of money. That will give the Sox time to figure out if any of their guys are making a leap in effectiveness (possible with Porcello in particular), or maybe that Buchholz will finally have a good, healthy season (haha!), etc, etc, or even if someone like Rodriguez has the makings to be a rotation horse for the next few years. I'm not doubting that there will be pitchers available at the deadline, my feeling is that even in July, a top of the rotation starter will cost more than a third round pick. On top of that, you won't get anything back for him if he walks, and to retain him, you'd be shelling out a big contract. If you are giving out a big money deal, why wouldn't you minimize the cost in assets and sign that pitcher as a free agent? Sure, it will cost more than a third round pick, but it'll cost FAR LESS than $200 million ... and almost surely less than whatever Amaro is asking for Hamels right now ("Betts, Swihart, and any two pitchers, Ben, or no deal!"). The free agent pool of true top-of-the-rotation talent is either one or two, depending on what you think of James Shields. Maybe the trade market consists of more than Hamels at this point, but I haven't seen much indication that it does. The point is that the cost of adding a top-of-the-rotation starter right now is prohibitively high. And the Sox don't need to pay that right now. Max Scherzer is not going to make or break the first three months of the Red Sox season, I think there's general agreement on that. There's a legit debate over whether you need top-of-the-rotation talent in the playoffs, but *if* that's needed, it'll almost surely be cheaper to get in July than it is now, in no small part because you're making a shorter commitment to it (just a few months). I'm fine with building a foundation of a team that can compete for the next few years while waiting until July to add that final pitching piece for a playoff run this year, if such a run looks likely.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 22, 2014 16:19:23 GMT -5
I don't think using projected fWAR to compare Kelly and Scherzer makes any sense. First, of all, it is a projection based on some statistical analysis, but for the most part, a guess - and in this case, I don't think a very good one. Right now, Scherzer obviously is a much better pitcher than Kelly, and, barring injury, he should win quite a few more games than Kelly. Consider this, the Red Sox team, as presently constituted, should be able to win 85-88 games, and should be able to compete for the post-season. But how many more games would the team win if an ace like Scherzer was acquired? What if the Sox win 91 games because of him? That is not unlikely. That makes the post-season far more likely. What are those additional wins worth? As it turns out, a huge amount. It has been calculated that just making the playoffs increases a team's revenues by 20-25 percent. The further the team goes into the post-season, the greater the increase in team revenues. A World Series win can mean more than doubling of team revenues. Now, I am not sure that the information I am using applies perfectly to the Red Sox, but the author seems to think it applies pretty universally. He argues that the Dodgers easily can afford their payroll if they make the post-season. So if one player can make a four, five, or six win difference, and the management thinks he will get the team into the 90+ win range, they can afford to pay him a great deal, and it may justify a multi-year contract even if the playoffs are reached only once or twice in that time. However, in my opinion, a seven-year contract for a pitcher is not a terrific idea. I think it makes more sense to pay more season in a shorter term deal. Here is the link: thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/10/02/how-much-value-does-a-postseason-appearance-hold-for-mlb-franchises/
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 22, 2014 16:37:27 GMT -5
This is the last post I'll make on the subject as I just feel like I'm repeating myself...but if there's something I'm missing here, I'd definitely like to hear it. Here you go.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2014 17:49:32 GMT -5
I don't think using projected fWAR to compare Kelly and Scherzer makes any sense. First, of all, it is a projection based on some statistical analysis, but for the most part, a guess - and in this case, I don't think a very good one. Right now, Scherzer obviously is a much better pitcher than Kelly, and, barring injury, he should win quite a few more games than Kelly. Consider this, the Red Sox team, as presently constituted, should be able to win 85-88 games, and should be able to compete for the post-season. But how many more games would the team win if an ace like Scherzer was acquired? What if the Sox win 91 games because of him? That is not unlikely. That makes the post-season far more likely. What are those additional wins worth? As it turns out, a huge amount. It has been calculated that just making the playoffs increases a team's revenues by 20-25 percent. The further the team goes into the post-season, the greater the increase in team revenues. A World Series win can mean more than doubling of team revenues. Now, I am not sure that the information I am using applies perfectly to the Red Sox, but the author seems to think it applies pretty universally. He argues that the Dodgers easily can afford their payroll if they make the post-season. So if one player can make a four, five, or six win difference, and the management thinks he will get the team into the 90+ win range, they can afford to pay him a great deal, and it may justify a multi-year contract even if the playoffs are reached only once or twice in that time. However, in my opinion, a seven-year contract for a pitcher is not a terrific idea. I think it makes more sense to pay more season in a shorter term deal. Here is the link: thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/10/02/how-much-value-does-a-postseason-appearance-hold-for-mlb-franchises/I think you're significantly underestimating the difference between a 4-win pitcher (he's seventh among SPs with that projection) and a 1-win pitcher in discounting that projection. I'd also ask where you're pulling the 85-88 wins number from. Is that your own number, or did you get it from a projection? If it's the latter, why can we ignore projections on Scherzer and Kelly but not the result of compiling many individual projections to project win totals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2014 20:17:18 GMT -5
Max Scherzer is a client of Scott Boras. What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 22, 2014 20:30:56 GMT -5
I think you're significantly underestimating the difference between a 4-win pitcher (he's seventh among SPs with that projection) and a 1-win pitcher in discounting that projection. I'd also ask where you're pulling the 85-88 wins number from. Is that your own number, or did you get it from a projection? If it's the latter, why can we ignore projections on Scherzer and Kelly but not the result of compiling many individual projections to project win totals? You may be right. I am not sure I understand how those projections are computed. On Dec. 19 at 1:25 PM I posted a piece in which I compared the 2015 Steamer projections on fangraphs for the position players to their actual 2014 performances. I did not use the pitcher projections. (If there have been some really good pitcher projections in the past, I haven't seen them. Generally all the ones I have seen have been mostly way off). I concluded that if these projections were met that the Sox could score as many as 200 more runs than they did in 2014, and if they did that, and their pitching is decent, they could be in the high 80s in wins. Fangraphs is projecting only 100 more runs, and that's how we got into the discussion about Castillo and the .217 BA and minus fWAR that fangraphs is using. I tried to send a message to fangraphs today concerning the strange projection for Castillo, but I was never able to get past their sign-in system. It appears there was a glitch with my password because the system won't recognize the one I used, and it won't let me change it. Incidentally, fangraphs is projecting 86 wins.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Dec 22, 2014 20:31:15 GMT -5
Where are the Drew brothers above?
I am quite excited that we will have a competitive team and haven't traded any of our top prospects. It'll give the Sox lots of flexibility after next season.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 22, 2014 22:05:27 GMT -5
Max Scherzer is a client of Scott Boras. What could possibly go wrong?
The Stephen Drew Sombrero is quite fitting.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 22, 2014 22:49:34 GMT -5
I'll never get the JD hate
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2014 23:16:45 GMT -5
Yeah, Scott Boras has represented some players who then got hurt or didn't play well at the end of their contracts. Other agents have represented players who did that, and players who Boras represented have been worth their contracts.
The Boras hate is such "Yankees Suck"-bumper sticker, fanboy BS. Sorry. I get where it comes from because everyone thinks that professional athletes should be members of the only profession where people perform their jobs for free even though they have about a 10-15-year window of earning potential and line the pockets of the billionaires who own the teams. But really, it's such crap.
Boras is the best in the world at what he does. If I played baseball, I'd want him working for me too. And yes, that's what the relationship is - the agent works for the player. Players who let him dictate what they do would let any other agent do the same, and they pay Boras to be the bad guy so that they don't have to get that label. Good for Boras if he gets Scherzer way more money than he's worth - that's what he's supposed to do.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Dec 22, 2014 23:30:16 GMT -5
Long time lurker, first time poster...
I am very happy so far with the Sox offseason. I am very happy with how Ben has built the pitching staff after missing out on Lester. If we add another starter I hope it is Shields as opposed to trading for Hamels. Why? The price for Hamels is waaaaaaaay too high. They (RAJ) are going to want Betts, Swihart or both! We are not in need of an "ace". I'd prefer that we hold onto the elite prospects, for at least one more year, to see how their development continues.
This upcoming season will (or at least should) be the year that Ranaudo and Barnes get their chance with the big club. Probably working out of the bullpen in a long role (many starters begin their careers that way) while getting their chance for spot starts in the rotation if/when there is an opportunity through injuries/ineffectiveness to/in the rotation. Also we will get a better read on Swihart, Johnson, Owens and Rodriguez before any more trades of the prospects are made. Swihart, Owens and Rodriguez are all at a very advanced stage for prospects their age, all currently 22 years-old and younger having each having quickly advanced to AAA. We should have a better read on their potential after they all get a full season at Pawtucket under their collective belts. The most intriguing part for me is the Vasquez v. Swihart decision if Swihart continues to develop as he has. Who do the Sox go with in the long run? The elite defender who might develop into a good hitter or the possibly elite hitter (at the position) who is a plus defender? A good problem to have!
As far as the position players for the club, the bash is back! Ben has assembled one of the more formidable line-ups in baseball. The most intriguing part will be the OF. I think in 2015 I think we will see Ramirez-Castillo-Betts/Victorino in the outfield. I can see a possible Betts-Victorino platoon. I think Betts still gets close to 400 PA with Victorino's injury history. With an eye towards preparing Betts to be the starter in 2016 after Victorino's contract expires. Where that leaves Craig and Nava remains to be seen...
I leave it there for now because I don't want my first post to read like War and Peace, lol. But I am looking forward to being part of (what appears to be) a passionate discussion about the Sox now and the Sox of the future.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Dec 22, 2014 23:55:59 GMT -5
Welcome libertine, I too lurked here for many years before posting last season. I agree, and am pleased and a bit surprised that an article in the globe today cited projections that have Boston expected to have one of the better starting rotations in baseball. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps the older flyball throwing Shields and the overpriced Hammels will indeed wait. We'll see how the starters led by Porcello, and E.Rodriguez and the prospects fare; this keeps our budget down and offers options for the many starters, hopefully at a reduced price during the July deadline.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Dec 23, 2014 0:26:11 GMT -5
Welcome libertine, I too lurked here for many years before posting last season. I agree, and am pleased and a bit surprised that an article in the globe today cited projections that have Boston expected to have one of the better starting rotations in baseball. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps the older flyball throwing Shields and the overpriced Hammels will indeed wait. We'll see how the starters led by Porcello, and E.Rodriguez and the prospects fare; this keeps our budget down and offers options for the many starters, hopefully at a reduced price during the July deadline. Thank you sir!
Yeah, we have a lot of organizational depth at SP. With the rotation as it is I say hold onto the prospects for now and see how they develop at AAA. Porcello is in the last year of his deal, we signed Masterson to a 1 year deal, and both Buchholz and Masterson have a history of injury/ineffectiveness which could create openings in the rotation for Barnes, Ranaudo or even Workman (who has been an effective starter in the past...still remember his near no-hitter in Oakland, he was nasty that day). But barring injury I see our rotation being pretty much set for 2015, with deep organizational depth at the position. No need to move anyone now.
Position players we don't have the depth at. That is why holding onto Betts and Swihart are my main concern for the rest of the offseason. Betts was very impressive in his cameo at the end of last season. Good plate discipline, elite speed, good defensively and has flashed some pop at the plate. Could be our leadoff man of the future if the end of last season was any indication! And Swihart is a potential (funny word as it may) all-star caliber C. We'll see how he handles a full season of more advanced (AAA) pitching...
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Dec 23, 2014 1:53:51 GMT -5
Good point Libertine, I can't remember the Sox ever having so many potential MLB'ers in the upper minors, including potential impact MLB'ers, and not to mention young guys who have lost rookie eligbility but still have a lot of development ahead of them. It's pretty exciting as a fan and I'm sure many on this board, like me, enjoyed watching the Sox even though they stunk last season, because they were bringing up so many kids. That stood in stark contrast to 2012 where I couldn't bring myself to watch by the end of the season. So this team is in a pretty unique spot of being positioned to contend in '15, but perhaps being positioned to be even better for a few years after, as they could have the makings of an all-star core supplemented by several valuable and cost controlled complementary players. I could see them signing a big money contract still if they perceive a good value, but I don't see them risking hampering the team down the road because of some sentiment that they need a "proven ace" or some other marquee player to put them over the top.
Edit: Nomar, I also don't get the JD hate. Or the perception of Ellsbury as soft or injury prone, for that matter. I mean, I can kind of see where it originated as like some sort of historical study, but it is complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 23, 2014 8:43:28 GMT -5
Sorry about rehashing the opt out argument, didn't realize it was such a heavily discussed issue. I'm semi-new and have not read up on all the hot-stove debates.
My overall point is that if player X signs a 7 year contract with an opt out and performs up to it (or beyond it) for the first 4 years, you will take those back end 3 years every time. He will get way more on the market if he opts-out. The debate about the validity of offering 7 year contracts themselves is a completely different argument and I'd say very few players are worth it.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Dec 23, 2014 9:14:23 GMT -5
Question in regards to next years large crop of FA pitchers. Will there be enough teams willing to spend for each pitcher to get a large contract?
Price Zimmerman Samardzija Cueto
Not to mention the second tier headed by the Red Sox newbee Porcello. I think it will be interesting to see if someone signs right out of the gate or if the last one of the four to sign gets stuck with a lesser contract.
|
|
|