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.
Red Sox to sign David Price
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 2, 2015 18:20:58 GMT -5
I find it amusing that people need to reference fangraphs chats or articles to become convinced of the exact same arguments that I and others have repeated ad nauseum. I guess for some, argument by "authority" is always preferable I have three followers on Twitter, including a new one today! My "authority" went up by 50%!
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 2, 2015 18:20:59 GMT -5
Cameron misses the point here. As much as I hate to say it, Grumbleshoes is right. If you do indeed predict that the car will break down in that time period, then yes, you want to get rid of it before you have to make those final expensive payments. Another way of looking at it, if the Yankees would have let Sabathia sign elsewhere after he opted out, then the opt would have been benefited both CC (assuming another team paid him generously) and the Yankees correct? On top of that, that wouldn't have been that outlandish to predict at the time of the opt out, there were many concerns regarding his workload and performance projections as he aged. I for one remember being happy when the Yankees had to extend his years. The Red Sox just need to make sure they avoid that mistake. The opt-out CAN be good for the team....to say it is never good for the team is silly. The Eno Sarris article is somewhere in the middle by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 2, 2015 18:21:57 GMT -5
That is so incoherent as to be bizarre. The calculation is straightforward: there's the cost of Price's remaining contract: A. In the trade case is ~ $127m B. In the FA case, by definition, is at least $1 more than that and certainly much more plus the "player acquisition cost" A. In trade case, is whatever the *Red Sox* can bargain B. In the FA case, is ~ a 1st round pick You're actually arguing that there is a team that would prefer to pay Price more rather than less (because it's via FA rather than by trade?). By definition, if Price were to perform such that he would choose to exercise opt-out (if available), then the Red Sox could trade him and as long as they could extract something in value > a sandwich pick, they come out ahead. Players (via their agents) value an opt-out - they request it. There is a substantial difference - without an opt-out, the Red Sox have the leverage - they choose the timing and are free to play teams off of each other to maximize their player return No, it's quite coherent and hangs together nicely, unless you leave out the risk mitigation part, which I see you did. I don't have much use for classical economics in as heavily constrained a market as this one. Efficiency, that abstract concept that bears hardly any resemblance to the real world, is out the window. The idea that there's always a willing buyer ready to do your market bidding is often useless. As I mentioned in my post, there's a much better way using agent based calculations. This is 2015, not 1915. Computer models that incorporate agents - actors including players, teams, and real "agents" - and the rules including agent behaviors, aging curves, CBA constraints, roster payroll needs, available player pools and more, can give you a much better feel for what will really happen. Look, I'm not saying that the Sox haven't taken on risk, they have. But the scenario you lay out above is dry as dust and static. As one simple example that actually has a non-zero chance of happening: if Price rides that aging curve, does relatively well for a few years, and is still good but not quite as good in the third, he might very well decide to leave. The Sox gain $30 million in salary relief. What if that allows them the leeway, having say extended Betts and with arbitration catching up to their payroll, to slide under the CBA and save $10 million a year? Where does that go in your calculation? Time to get real about the costs and benefits, to step back from the simplistic market-based paradigm and look at the whole system. That's just one item that needs to be accounted for. There are plenty of others. No, I don't think the team actually did that modeling. But I do think they recognize the dynamic nature of this market, and the constraints that restrict it. There are pluses, not just minuses, that's all I'm saying. They're all part of the calculation, as complex as it might be.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 18:26:32 GMT -5
That is so incoherent as to be bizarre. The calculation is straightforward: there's the cost of Price's remaining contract: A. In the trade case is ~ $127m B. In the FA case, by definition, is at least $1 more than that and certainly much more plus the "player acquisition cost" A. In trade case, is whatever the *Red Sox* can bargain B. In the FA case, is ~ a 1st round pick You're actually arguing that there is a team that would prefer to pay Price more rather than less (because it's via FA rather than by trade?). By definition, if Price were to perform such that he would choose to exercise opt-out (if available), then the Red Sox could trade him and as long as they could extract something in value > a sandwich pick, they come out ahead. Players (via their agents) value an opt-out - they request it. There is a substantial difference - without an opt-out, the Red Sox have the leverage - they choose the timing and are free to play teams off of each other to maximize their player return No, it's quite coherent and hangs together nicely, unless you leave out the risk mitigation part, which I see you did. I don't have much use for classical economics in as heavily constrained a market as this one. Efficiency, that abstract concept that bears hardly any resemblance to the real world, is out the window. The idea that there's always a willing buyer ready to do your market bidding is often useless. As I mentioned in my post, there's a much better way using agent based calculations. This is 2015, not 1915. Computer models that incorporate agents - actors including players, teams, and real "agents" - and the rules including agent behaviors, aging curves, CBA constraints, roster payroll needs, available player pools and more, can give you a much better feel for what will really happen. Look, I'm not saying that the Sox haven't taken on risk, they have. But the scenario you lay out above is dry as dust and static. As one simple example that actually has a non-zero chance of happening: if Price rides that aging curve, does relatively well for a few years, and is still good but not quite as good in the third, he might very well decide to leave. The Sox gain $30 million in salary relief. What if that allows them the leeway, having say extended Betts and with arbitration catching up to their payroll, to slide under the CBA and save $10 million a year? Where does that go in your calculation? Time to get real about the costs and benefits, to step back from the simplistic market-based paradigm and look at the whole system. That's just one item that needs to be accounted for. There are plenty of others. No, I don't think the team actually did that modeling. But I do think they recognize the dynamic nature of this market, and the constraints that restrict it. There are pluses, not just minuses, that's all I'm saying. They're all part of the calculation, as complex as it might be. you do realize that if you trade a player making $30m that that results in $30m of payroll relief, right? It's just not that complicated
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 2, 2015 19:18:34 GMT -5
No, it's quite coherent and hangs together nicely, unless you leave out the risk mitigation part, which I see you did. I don't have much use for classical economics in as heavily constrained a market as this one. Efficiency, that abstract concept that bears hardly any resemblance to the real world, is out the window. The idea that there's always a willing buyer ready to do your market bidding is often useless. As I mentioned in my post, there's a much better way using agent based calculations. This is 2015, not 1915. Computer models that incorporate agents - actors including players, teams, and real "agents" - and the rules including agent behaviors, aging curves, CBA constraints, roster payroll needs, available player pools and more, can give you a much better feel for what will really happen. Look, I'm not saying that the Sox haven't taken on risk, they have. But the scenario you lay out above is dry as dust and static. As one simple example that actually has a non-zero chance of happening: if Price rides that aging curve, does relatively well for a few years, and is still good but not quite as good in the third, he might very well decide to leave. The Sox gain $30 million in salary relief. What if that allows them the leeway, having say extended Betts and with arbitration catching up to their payroll, to slide under the CBA and save $10 million a year? Where does that go in your calculation? Time to get real about the costs and benefits, to step back from the simplistic market-based paradigm and look at the whole system. That's just one item that needs to be accounted for. There are plenty of others. No, I don't think the team actually did that modeling. But I do think they recognize the dynamic nature of this market, and the constraints that restrict it. There are pluses, not just minuses, that's all I'm saying. They're all part of the calculation, as complex as it might be. There are 2 criteria required in which adding a player option is ALWAYS bad for the team: 1. All players/participants are rational 2. All players/participants have perfect information (player/participant = team(s) AND player(s)) It's difficult for the above criteria to ever be 100%, so you could certainly argue that Price will opt-out thinking he will make more money, but will turn out to be mistaken and will receive a lesser contract than the 4/127M remaining (imperfect information). Or that Price will outperform his contract but not exercise his option because he's such a nice guy and really likes Boston (this would make him an irrational participant). Either of these are theoretically possible. If you disagree with the player option being a negative value for the team, please explain which of the above criteria are the reason why as the option is good in this case and it will help everyone follow your reasoning. (if you believe the player option is preferable to adding more money to the contract, assuming that is required, that's justifiable, but a slightly different discussion)
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Dec 2, 2015 20:04:54 GMT -5
working off with the projected 2019 Red Sox lineup on this site, as a rough jumping off point, and factor in whatever you will of the anticipated player development, including the impact of Price on the young pitchers from 2016-18, as anecdotally referenced by Archer & Stroman, how would this 25 man look to you?... ...again, as a rough jumping off point (recognizing that Hanley has only an option for 2019, and Pablo has a commitment for 2019, and an option for '20, I've, for this exercise, swapped Pablo in for Hanley) - Starters RH Rick Porcello LH Eduardo Rodriguez LH Henry Owens LH Brian Johnson RH Anderson Espinoza Bullpen RH Michael Kopech LH Trey Ball RH Matt Barnes RH Brandon Workman RH Pat Light LH Willaims Jerez LH Luis Ysla RH Teddy Stankiewicz Lineup C Blake Swihart 1B Rafael Devers 2B Dustin Pedroia 3B Yoan Moncada SS Xander Bogaerts LF Andrew Benintendi CF Mookie Betts RF Jackie Bradley DH Pablo Sandoval Bench C Christian Vazquez 1B Sam Travis IF Deven Marrero IF OF Rusney Castillo
Now, consider that Price has opted out...what would you project the dollar commitment to the above projected roster would be?...what would you project to be the additional payroll available to be?...if you're regretting having provided the opt out, three years earlier, how, from among the projected FAs would you first look to direct your available payroll?
I guess my overriding question - hope really - would be...is it possible that the RS in some way see Price as a "player bridge"...that the Price signing isn't necessarily representing a philosophical change, as it is a necessary commitment to get to where they really want to be operationally, as an organization?...
...and if "my hope" isn't the RS long term philosophy, that the payroll of the above referenced projected roster, could support locking up their own talent, early, and still have money available to sing one of the projected >2018 free agents, Price included? That the big picture could set up quite nicely for the RS and their fans, regardless of how Price's decision on the opt-out breaks?
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Dec 2, 2015 20:16:10 GMT -5
Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. (Not sure why it took me so long to make an account)
I am happy with the deal overall. We got our ace and we didn't have to give up the farm, give up our core players (Betts, Bogaerts, etc..), OR give up a first round draft pick. There are no health concerns and we know that Price can pitch extremely well in the AL East and also at Fenway Park. All it costs us is money and even that shouldn't be too much of a problem, as we have room to add him for 2016, in 2017 Ortiz, Uehara and Buchholz (assuming $500k buyout) come off payroll, in 2018 Kimbrel and Miley come off payroll (although our budget might be tight that year because Xander, Bradley, Betts, Swihart will all be arbitration eligible), and in 2019 Hanley's albatross of a contract will then be off our shoulders....so Price's deal won't impede us from keeping our team together although it might prevent us from pursuing another high dollar FA. (Which is fine because we will have a lot of talent coming up through the system by then)
I think a good comparison to Davis Price would be Roy Halladay. 'Doc' used to be the top pitcher in the AL like Price is today. Both were 6'6" pitchers with lower effort deliveries who were workhorses (Price: over 1400IP pre-30 / Halladay: over 1300IP pre-30) who had 1 CY and a handful of AS appearances to their name. Here are the numbers from Doc's 30-36 seasons:
Roy Halladay (7 years): 108-57 3.17 ERA 1.12 WHIP 1413 IP 4.54 K/BB 33.7 WAR (4x AS/3 top 3 CY)
What's a WAR worth nowadays, about $6m? If so Halladay from 30 onwards would have been worth a hair over $202m. I could definitely see Price following a similar career path and if so, I will be very happy with the contract. (Even though it seems a bit excessive dollar-wise at the moment)
I either read it or heard it on the radio but supposedly last season Price had the highest swing and miss % (12% iirc) of his career, while throwing the lowest % of fastballs of his career (40%? i think). That shows me that he is becoming more of a pitcher and he should be able to keep pitching at a high level even when his velocity starts to diminish. If you look at it that way the back end of the deal doesn't look so bad.
Now onto the real question. What is our rotation looking like for 2016?
1. Price 2. Rodriguez 3. Buchholz 4. Porcello 5. Miley
Does this mean Kelly will be in the bullpen, and Owens in AAA?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 2, 2015 20:18:06 GMT -5
Cameron misses the point here. As much as I hate to say it, Grumbleshoes is right. If you do indeed predict that the car will break down in that time period, then yes, you want to get rid of it before you have to make those final expensive payments. Another way of looking at it, if the Yankees would have let Sabathia sign elsewhere after he opted out, then the opt would have been benefited both CC (assuming another team paid him generously) and the Yankees correct? On top of that, that wouldn't have been that outlandish to predict at the time of the opt out, there were many concerns regarding his workload and performance projections as he aged. I for one remember being happy when the Yankees had to extend his years. The Red Sox just need to make sure they avoid that mistake. The opt-out CAN be good for the team....to say it is never good for the team is silly. The Eno Sarris article is somewhere in the middle by the way. The part you aren't acknowledging is trades exist. David Price isn't going to opt out unless he knows he'll definitely get more money by doing so. At that point, the Red Sox could trade him for real value if they didn't believe in him going forward. Not being able to trade a player with a favorable contract isn't a perk. People keep talking about the pressure the team would feel to retain him rather than dealing him if the opt-out didn't exist, but the same pressure will be there once he hits free agency (and probably slightly more pressure because they will only get a pick back instead of real talent). So under this scenario of events, the Red Sox still lose the benefit of being able to trade him. All of the people who keep arguing the opt-out can be good seem to forget that trades exist, or they add on absurd qualifiers like the team would be incapable of making a proper trade and the opt-out will save them from themselves. The only way this opt-out would be a positive is if Price somehow decided to opt-out of a favorable deal just to get off the team (which is about as likely as Craig opting for free agency this year). I guess he could completely misread the market and make a terrible decision too, but both of these possibilities are so remote they aren't worth discussing. The opt-out is a player friendly clause, and the Red Sox would benefit more by having the ability to trade an elite Price in three years than having to let him walk, everything else is just noise.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,828
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 2, 2015 20:38:46 GMT -5
Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. (Not sure why it took me so long to make an account) I am happy with the deal overall. We got our ace and we didn't have to give up the farm, give up our core players (Betts, Bogaerts, etc..), OR give up a first round draft pick. There are no health concerns and we know that Price can pitch extremely well in the AL East and also at Fenway Park. All it costs us is money and even that shouldn't be too much of a problem, as we have room to add him for 2016, in 2017 Ortiz, Uehara and Buchholz (assuming $500k buyout) come off payroll, in 2018 Kimbrel and Miley come off payroll (although our budget might be tight that year because Xander, Bradley, Betts, Swihart will all be arbitration eligible), and in 2019 Hanley's albatross of a contract will then be off our shoulders....so Price's deal won't impede us from keeping our team together although it might prevent us from pursuing another high dollar FA. (Which is fine because we will have a lot of talent coming up through the system by then) I think a good comparison to Davis Price would be Roy Halladay. 'Doc' used to be the top pitcher in the AL like Price is today. Both were 6'6" pitchers with lower effort deliveries who were workhorses (Price: over 1400IP pre-30 / Halladay: over 1300IP pre-30) who had 1 CY and a handful of AS appearances to their name. Here are the numbers from Doc's 30-36 seasons: Roy Halladay (7 years): 108-57 3.17 ERA 1.12 WHIP 1413 IP 4.54 K/BB 33.7 WAR (4x AS/3 top 3 CY) What's a WAR worth nowadays, about $6m? If so Halladay from 30 onwards would have been worth a hair over $202m. I could definitely see Price following a similar career path and if so, I will be very happy with the contract. (Even though it seems a bit excessive dollar-wise at the moment) I either read it or heard it on the radio but supposedly last season Price had the highest swing and miss % (12% iirc) of his career, while throwing the lowest % of fastballs of his career (40%? i think). That shows me that he is becoming more of a pitcher and he should be able to keep pitching at a high level even when his velocity starts to diminish. If you look at it that way the back end of the deal doesn't look so bad. Now onto the real question. What is our rotation looking like for 2016? 1. Price 2. Rodriguez 3. Buchholz 4. Porcello 5. Miley Does this mean Kelly will be in the bullpen, and Owens in AAA? Welcome Joe Cronin!! Very nice 1st post. You are right about Price's evolution. I read someone's comments today (who should know better) that Price is really just a fastball/changeup guy. How wrong that is! His cutter alone has improved his stock and performance. Yeah....I think you are right....he will age much better than Sabathia.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Dec 2, 2015 20:54:37 GMT -5
Just a few scattered thoughts after reading 18 pages of discussion on opt-outs:
- Opt-outs are a perk to the player. Assuming rational players, agents and teams, a player will only opt-out - barring extenuating circumstances - if he feels in the longer run he'll get more money. Even if it means a lesser AAV for more years.
- Having said that, opt-outs are not necessarily bad for the team, as only as they remain cool-headed at that point and don't go act like NYY after CC and Arod opted out. Treat it as any other player in the market. The clause can even be a positive for the team if it gets to a point in contract discussions when it is the deciding factor for a player in choosing against competing or even superior - money wise - offers.
-The way I evaluate the deal is simple and resides in one question: Would you be happy with a no-strings attached 7/217 deal? If the answer is yes then the opt-out is a non-factor, even a positive one, as it likely lowered the full dollar amount. You'll have the downside of a 7/217 contract with the upside of a 3/90 one. Considering the initial question, the downside is already something you'd be satisfied with. I see everyone fixated on the 4/127 figure, that is not a problem for the Sox, that is something for Price and his agent to think about. For Boston it's either a 3/90 plus a draft pick or 7/217, likely without the pick.
-The argument can be made that he might go Randy Johnson on us, and in three years time 4/127 would be something you'd gladly have, yet having to compete with rival teams on the FA market for a new contract, that will be richer and thus add more risk, either in dollars or years form. That scenario is, though, very unlikely, but does represent the possibility of an added opportunity cost.
-Regarding players value decline: Players age in all sorts of manners, Price can have a steady and gradual decline over the next few years, with the tipping in terms of value/$ at any given time during his deal. It can be either before or after the opt-out time, but once again, that is something for Price and his agent to sweat about and gamble, the Sox already established that 7/217 is a reasonable deal in their minds.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 2, 2015 20:59:09 GMT -5
Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. (Not sure why it took me so long to make an account) I am happy with the deal overall. We got our ace and we didn't have to give up the farm, give up our core players (Betts, Bogaerts, etc..), OR give up a first round draft pick. There are no health concerns and we know that Price can pitch extremely well in the AL East and also at Fenway Park. All it costs us is money and even that shouldn't be too much of a problem, as we have room to add him for 2016, in 2017 Ortiz, Uehara and Buchholz (assuming $500k buyout) come off payroll, in 2018 Kimbrel and Miley come off payroll (although our budget might be tight that year because Xander, Bradley, Betts, Swihart will all be arbitration eligible), and in 2019 Hanley's albatross of a contract will then be off our shoulders....so Price's deal won't impede us from keeping our team together although it might prevent us from pursuing another high dollar FA. (Which is fine because we will have a lot of talent coming up through the system by then) I think a good comparison to Davis Price would be Roy Halladay. 'Doc' used to be the top pitcher in the AL like Price is today. Both were 6'6" pitchers with lower effort deliveries who were workhorses (Price: over 1400IP pre-30 / Halladay: over 1300IP pre-30) who had 1 CY and a handful of AS appearances to their name. Here are the numbers from Doc's 30-36 seasons: Roy Halladay (7 years): 108-57 3.17 ERA 1.12 WHIP 1413 IP 4.54 K/BB 33.7 WAR (4x AS/3 top 3 CY) What's a WAR worth nowadays, about $6m? If so Halladay from 30 onwards would have been worth a hair over $202m. I could definitely see Price following a similar career path and if so, I will be very happy with the contract. (Even though it seems a bit excessive dollar-wise at the moment) I either read it or heard it on the radio but supposedly last season Price had the highest swing and miss % (12% iirc) of his career, while throwing the lowest % of fastballs of his career (40%? i think). That shows me that he is becoming more of a pitcher and he should be able to keep pitching at a high level even when his velocity starts to diminish. If you look at it that way the back end of the deal doesn't look so bad. Now onto the real question. What is our rotation looking like for 2016? 1. Price 2. Rodriguez 3. Buchholz 4. Porcello 5. Miley Does this mean Kelly will be in the bullpen, and Owens in AAA? Agreed, and welcome to the board. (last i checked, a win was in the 6.85 - 7 mil range) I think you got the rotation down, and it looks both good and deep. But I think the order will look more like this to begin with: 1. Price 2. Buchholz 3. Miley 4. Porcello 5. Rodriguez (with Kelly in the pen - or even AAA as he has options) But I fear that it may be: 1. Price 2. Buchholz 3. Porcello 4. Miley 5. Kelly (with Rodriguez in AAA) Either way, an injury (we can all guess who) or 2 will quickly make sure the cream rises to the top. It's a great position to be in. I for one hope they keep Miley this year as trading him would be like trading Arroyo, and we all know how that turned out. Too many good arms never seems to be an issue long-term.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Dec 2, 2015 21:05:49 GMT -5
Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. (Not sure why it took me so long to make an account) I am happy with the deal overall. We got our ace and we didn't have to give up the farm, give up our core players (Betts, Bogaerts, etc..), OR give up a first round draft pick. There are no health concerns and we know that Price can pitch extremely well in the AL East and also at Fenway Park. All it costs us is money and even that shouldn't be too much of a problem, as we have room to add him for 2016, in 2017 Ortiz, Uehara and Buchholz (assuming $500k buyout) come off payroll, in 2018 Kimbrel and Miley come off payroll (although our budget might be tight that year because Xander, Bradley, Betts, Swihart will all be arbitration eligible), and in 2019 Hanley's albatross of a contract will then be off our shoulders....so Price's deal won't impede us from keeping our team together although it might prevent us from pursuing another high dollar FA. (Which is fine because we will have a lot of talent coming up through the system by then) I think a good comparison to Davis Price would be Roy Halladay. 'Doc' used to be the top pitcher in the AL like Price is today. Both were 6'6" pitchers with lower effort deliveries who were workhorses (Price: over 1400IP pre-30 / Halladay: over 1300IP pre-30) who had 1 CY and a handful of AS appearances to their name. Here are the numbers from Doc's 30-36 seasons: Roy Halladay (7 years): 108-57 3.17 ERA 1.12 WHIP 1413 IP 4.54 K/BB 33.7 WAR (4x AS/3 top 3 CY) What's a WAR worth nowadays, about $6m? If so Halladay from 30 onwards would have been worth a hair over $202m. I could definitely see Price following a similar career path and if so, I will be very happy with the contract. (Even though it seems a bit excessive dollar-wise at the moment) I either read it or heard it on the radio but supposedly last season Price had the highest swing and miss % (12% iirc) of his career, while throwing the lowest % of fastballs of his career (40%? i think). That shows me that he is becoming more of a pitcher and he should be able to keep pitching at a high level even when his velocity starts to diminish. If you look at it that way the back end of the deal doesn't look so bad. Now onto the real question. What is our rotation looking like for 2016? 1. Price 2. Rodriguez 3. Buchholz 4. Porcello 5. Miley Does this mean Kelly will be in the bullpen, and Owens in AAA? Agreed, and welcome to the board. (last i checked, a win was in the 6.85 - 7 mil range) I think you got the rotation down, and it looks both good and deep. But I think the order will look more like this to begin with: 1. Price 2. Buchholz 3. Miley 4. Porcello 5. Rodriguez (with Kelly in the pen - or even AAA as he has options) But I fear that it may be: 1. Price 2. Buchholz 3. Porcello 4. Miley 5. Kelly (with Rodriguez in AAA) Either way, an injury (we can all guess who) or 2 will quickly make sure the cream rises to the top. It's a great position to be in. I for one hope they keep Miley this year as trading him would be like trading Arroyo, and we all know how that turned out. Too many good arms never seems to be an issue long-term. I will guarantee you that rodriguez will not be in the minors. He was their best pitcher last year. I don't think him starting in the minor leagues has any shot at all
|
|
|
Post by kyla13 on Dec 2, 2015 21:30:48 GMT -5
So here's what I am hearing 1) while this deal put us in a much better bargaining position, this is not it for the revamp of the staff there is one more deal which we almost closed early this fall for a young cost controlled pitcher who will slot in very well at #2 but will cost us outfield surplus (most likely JBJ) and one more guy that will be an unpopular add on. 2) ... As always YMMV I'm surprised this is not much discussed about and we instead got three additional pages of opt-out discussion right after Chris H tried to end it by summarising both sides' points and rightfully stating that no one seem to be changing their minds. Anyway, since brisox in an earlier post correctly stated that David Price will sign before Dec 10 and DD will get him by paying $30 million more than the 2nd highest bid, so he must have some inside info. I wonder who that young #2 that almost got done and who the Sox are trading away. I initially thought Carrasco but because someone said he's durable (was that brisox again) so now maybe it's Quintana. As to the "one more guy that will be unpopular" (to us or the FO?), I guess it was Swihart but then the other Sox signed Avila. Or could be one of the Big 4 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 2, 2015 22:03:25 GMT -5
-The way I evaluate the deal is simple and resides in one question: Would you be happy with a no-strings attached 7/217 deal? If the answer is yes then the opt-out is a non-factor, even a positive one, as it likely lowered the full dollar amount. You'll have the downside of a 7/217 contract with the upside of a 3/90 one. Considering the initial question, the downside is already something you'd be satisfied with. I see everyone fixated on the 4/127 figure, that is not a problem for the Sox, that is something for Price and his agent to think about. For Boston it's either a 3/90 plus a draft pick or 7/217, likely without the pick. This is a good way to conceptualize it-- I agree that from this perspective, it's a good deal for the Red Sox. Agreed, and welcome to the board. (last i checked, a win was in the 6.85 - 7 mil range) I think it's closer to $7.5-8m per win-- at least, that's what the Fangraphs writers have been throwing around.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 2, 2015 22:28:31 GMT -5
So here's what I am hearing 1) while this deal put us in a much better bargaining position, this is not it for the revamp of the staff there is one more deal which we almost closed early this fall for a young cost controlled pitcher who will slot in very well at #2 but will cost us outfield surplus (most likely JBJ) and one more guy that will be an unpopular add on. 2) ... As always YMMV I'm surprised this is not much discussed about and we instead got three additional pages of opt-out discussion right after Chris H tried to end it by summarising both sides' points and rightfully stating that no one seem to be changing their minds. Anyway, since brisox in an earlier post correctly stated that David Price will sign before Dec 10 and DD will get him by paying $30 million more than the 2nd highest bid, so he must have some inside info. I wonder who that young #2 that almost got done and who the Sox are trading away. I initially thought Carrasco but because someone said he's durable (was that brisox again) so now maybe it's Quintana. As to the "one more guy that will be unpopular" (to us or the FO?), I guess it was Swihart but then the other Sox signed Avila. Or could be one of the Big 4 prospects. Twitter superstars are made from info like what brisox shares here. When brisox talks, I listen. (And I see you do, too. Welcome to the board!)
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 2, 2015 22:43:56 GMT -5
Cameron misses the point here. As much as I hate to say it, Grumbleshoes is right. If you do indeed predict that the car will break down in that time period, then yes, you want to get rid of it before you have to make those final expensive payments. Another way of looking at it, if the Yankees would have let Sabathia sign elsewhere after he opted out, then the opt would have been benefited both CC (assuming another team paid him generously) and the Yankees correct? On top of that, that wouldn't have been that outlandish to predict at the time of the opt out, there were many concerns regarding his workload and performance projections as he aged. I for one remember being happy when the Yankees had to extend his years. The Red Sox just need to make sure they avoid that mistake. The opt-out CAN be good for the team....to say it is never good for the team is silly. The Eno Sarris article is somewhere in the middle by the way. The part you aren't acknowledging is trades exist. David Price isn't going to opt out unless he knows he'll definitely get more money by doing so. At that point, the Red Sox could trade him for real value if they didn't believe in him going forward. Not being able to trade a player with a favorable contract isn't a perk. People keep talking about the pressure the team would feel to retain him rather than dealing him if the opt-out didn't exist, but the same pressure will be there once he hits free agency (and probably slightly more pressure because they will only get a pick back instead of real talent). So under this scenario of events, the Red Sox still lose the benefit of being able to trade him. All of the people who keep arguing the opt-out can be good seem to forget that trades exist, or they add on absurd qualifiers like the team would be incapable of making a proper trade and the opt-out will save them from themselves. The only way this opt-out would be a positive is if Price somehow decided to opt-out of a favorable deal just to get off the team (which is about as likely as Craig opting for free agency this year). I guess he could completely misread the market and make a terrible decision too, but both of these possibilities are so remote they aren't worth discussing. The opt-out is a player friendly clause, and the Red Sox would benefit more by having the ability to trade an elite Price in three years than having to let him walk, everything else is just noise. Sure I see your point, but that still hardly convinces me that player opt-outs never benefit the team. Its kind of beside the point. Great, we can't trade him. The fact remains, that the player opt-out can still be beneficial to the team though because we avoid paying for what are considered higher risk years at the same premium AAV.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 2, 2015 23:09:57 GMT -5
I generally agree, although they may need a power bat, especially when Ortiz is gone. Frankly, here's hoping he drops 35 bombs this year and hits .300/.400/.600, and decides to go another year. But barring that miracle, or a ludicrously fast development track for Devers (or a remarkable Hanley revival), they may need a legit 3/4 hitter. Sure they do, but look at the upcoming free agents in the next 3 years, outside of encarnacion, who the jays probably won't let get away unless there is serious regression, there is nobody to spend significant dollars on. The next big money spent by the sox is going to mookie and xander I think you're on the money there; the only caveat I see is an issue with a trade-and-sign, but that means giving up MLB talent *and* prospects, and creates holes elsewhere (especially for a middle-order bat). I'm relatively confident that one of Devers-Moncada-Benintendi will be providing significant offensive value within 3 years, so they may be trying to answer the question internally with the hope that Hanley can prosper as a DH until then. At least they saved the 12 pick, which might yield a valuable trade chip or (far less likely) a big bat in and of itself. Once Hanley's and Sandoval's contracts are up, that will free up $ for Betts and Bogaerts, particularly presuming Papi is gone and Buchholz is as well, with the hope that Light takes Koji's 8th inning spot. That's $35M right there off the books after 2016. Unless they do something wacky and sign Davis, then unload Hanley, which seems remarkably unlikely. Or Shaw emerges as a consistent 5 hitter, and Hanley regresses to his career numbers or close to them in the 4 spot. I certainly don't see much of anyone on the horizon FA-wise, Encarnacion included, that I'd want them spending money on.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 2, 2015 23:43:40 GMT -5
It seems to me that the opt-out is less of an issue for the Sox if they believe in Espinoza, Kopech, Owens, and Johnson emerging as 1-2-3-4 quality starters in 3 years. Rodriguez already has the look of a solid 2/3 with 1a-upside, so it's very possible that a Price opt-out (if it were to happen) would be answered not with spending that $31M AAV on another starter, but elsewhere. That's my issue with Cameron's argument...if Price pitches really well, the Sox benefit for three years. If he leaves still at peak performance, they have a "hole" only if their prospects/E-Rod don't step up. Now, given attrition rates, that's entirely feasible. But I do think the timeframe lends at least some insight into their thinking. They very well may be predicting that their rotation will be good enough that that $31M would be better spent elsewhere. Given the impending end of Sandoval's contract at that time, along with the end of Kimbrel's and Hanley's current deals, there could potentially be $84M coming off the books, with holes at 3b (hopefully Devers or Moncada takes that spot), DH/1b (Shaw, Sam Travis, Devers, FA/trade), CL (Kimbrel re-signing, or FA, or internal answer like Light or even Jerez), and #1 starter. The hardest to fill (and probably most costly) is the #1 starter. But if Espinoza, Rodriguez, and Kopech can together produce a 1a and a solid 2, they have low-cost internal answers that send the bull of those $ elsewhere. And if Price stays but declines to 3-level, they can presumably offset the rotation cost by plugging in near-league-minimum options from out of that group of four, and (with Porcello having just one more year), sign a younger FA to another pricey long-term deal without crippling their payroll flexibility. I just don't see the opt-out as really a bad thing at all, unless the entire young crowd implodes.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 3, 2015 0:07:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 3, 2015 0:36:58 GMT -5
... There are 2 criteria required in which adding a player option is ALWAYS bad for the team: 1. All players/participants are rational 2. All players/participants have perfect information (player/participant = team(s) AND player(s)) It's difficult for the above criteria to ever be 100%, so you could certainly argue that Price will opt-out thinking he will make more money, but will turn out to be mistaken and will receive a lesser contract than the 4/127M remaining (imperfect information). Or that Price will outperform his contract but not exercise his option because he's such a nice guy and really likes Boston (this would make him an irrational participant). Either of these are theoretically possible. If you disagree with the player option being a negative value for the team, please explain which of the above criteria are the reason why as the option is good in this case and it will help everyone follow your reasoning. (if you believe the player option is preferable to adding more money to the contract, assuming that is required, that's justifiable, but a slightly different discussion) I don't disagree that the option brings negative value. What I've been pointing out is that, given the constraints on that market, the need to factor in payroll for other players, and the possibility of acquisitions that would also require cap space, there is some unacknowledged positive value that should have weight. Step back and acknowledge it, please. Does it counteract all the risk? I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else. Using a simplistic theory that's antiquated, given the ability we have for considerably more nuanced analysis based on the actual economic game that's being played, just doesn't appeal to me. Leave aside the existential absurdity of those two criteria. Assume they are mostly right, and change them from categorical to partial, as in most participants are rational, and many participants (don't forget the agent/advisers) have perfect information, and the entire theory falls completely apart. And I don't care if it's still taught in econ 101, it's outdated and patently absurd.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 3, 2015 3:15:21 GMT -5
I don't disagree that the option brings negative value. If you agree that it brings negative value - then what are you arguing about? What I've been pointing out is that, given the constraints on that market, the need to factor in payroll for other players, and the possibility of acquisitions that would also require cap space, there is some unacknowledged positive value that should have weight. Step back and acknowledge it, please. Does it counteract all the risk? I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But the option of a trade mitigates all issues you bring up here. As to your question of whether it 'mitigates all risk': if price pitches like an 8 WAR pitcher for the next 3 years then opts out, receiving a larger contract, and continues to pitch like an 8 WAR pitcher for the 4 following years, then the Red Sox would be out a great deal of surplus value - this is a risk. So yes, we do know that the player option doesn't mitigate all risk. Using a simplistic theory that's antiquated, given the ability we have for considerably more nuanced analysis based on the actual economic game that's being played, just doesn't appeal to me. Leave aside the existential absurdity of those two criteria. Assume they are mostly right, and change them from categorical to partial, as in most participants are rational, and many participants (don't forget the agent/advisers) have perfect information, and the entire theory falls completely apart. These basic principles of game theory are absurd? The agents/advisers are not players/participants here - they are simply advisers as the titles suggest and likely part of the decision making process for each player/participant. If you believe that the participants aren't rational, please state your reasoning so others can understand. (maybe you think the Red Sox would choose not to trade him without the option in fear of the fan-base's public outcry?)That's what I was requesting earlier as it would give many of us a better idea of what you are thinking. And I don't care if it's still taught in econ 101, it's outdated and patently absurd. These are not Econ 101 terms - these come from game theory. But your claim that a statement by someone is 'econ 101', 'outdated' and 'patently absurd' shows a closed-mindedness and unnecessary defamation of others in order to stroke your own ego. There is no reason for you to succumb to this. You're better than this. I apologize for re-opening this can of worms. I thought that by adding commentary from Fangraphs and offering a new way of looking at the subject that I had not seen previously discussed, then it may help bridge the gap. But it seems like the 'for or against player options' debate is like debating religion and no good will come of it. I'm still perplexed as to why.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 3, 2015 3:29:22 GMT -5
Agreed, and welcome to the board. (last i checked, a win was in the 6.85 - 7 mil range) I think it's closer to $7.5-8m per win-- at least, that's what the Fangraphs writers have been throwing around. I used this figure (6.85M) because it was the most recent one I found on Fangraphs. However now I see that it seems to have originated from Sports Illustrated - but derived from ZiPS, but was not refuted by Dave Cameron. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-cameron-fangraphs-chat-12215/
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 3, 2015 6:26:45 GMT -5
In regards to Miley. I like the guy, I like that he makes every start but I think the Sox could do better with the Sox letting Brian Johnson or Henry Owens competing for a fifth spot. Miley to me is a number 5 in the al east at most, there leaves a lot to be desired in terms of better quality if that option is there and it is with Johnson and Owens. I've seen Miley associated with the word beast in this thread and I think that's a little ridiculous.
To me if we are talking about quality at the number 5 spot of the rotation, Owens and Johnson both beat Miley by a lot. Owens had a era under 4 until his last start of the season. Brian Johnson who I think is one of the most underrated pitchers in this organization, is a beast to me. The guy doesn't give up hits at all and has one of the most fascinating curveballs I have ever seen. He changes speeds with it, he has different variotions of it, and he has total command of it. People have compared it to a Bruce Hurst type of curveball, well I wasn't alive back then but I would of loved Hurst if he threw that kind of curveball. I think Johnson has a chance to be better than what his floor is as a prospect. Just because he doesn't throw hard doesn't mean he can't be dominant. He out of Rodriguez and Owens has had the best minor league numbers to this point and has been the most consistent pitcher throughout all their timeline of rising through the system. I love all three, and I'm not bashing any one of them. I'm just clearly showing my biased towards Johnson. Johnson just knows how to pitch too. In and out of the zone, up and down, changing speeds. It's awesome to watch him pitch honestly.
Ohh and I absolutely don't include Kelly in the 5 spot in the rotation if I'm the Sox. Everyone remembers his last 10 starts or so before he went on the dl (yet again) and act like that is a good reason to give him another shot. Yet we forget he was so awful in the first half that the Sox had to use his last option even though it didn't benefit the team (at least in regards to service time) to get him to be any semblance of a major league pitcher again. He was one of the worst pitchers in baseball in the first half. Kelly is a thrower (not a pitcher) in my view and he can't stay healthy and can't throw strikes consistently. In my opinion, the only option for him to get the most out of his ability is to limit his innings and come out and throw (what he usually is doing anyways) and limit his thinking on the mound as a reliever. The Sox will be lucky if he turns out to be a good middle reliever. I'm not high on Kelly at all. In fact I think he's the exact opposite of Johnson like I was mentioning earlier, which is why he is ideal for the bullpen on paper. One of the things about this guy is that he sounds selfish about being in the bullpen because "he thinks he can win a cy young award."
All in all of my summary. Trade Miley. Have Johnson and Owens battle out the last spot of the rotation. Send Kelly to the bullpen and hope he figures it out there.
End rant. Ohh and I love Price and the elements he's going to bring to Owens, Johnson, and Rodriguez. How awesome it is to have the a top 3 left handed pitcher in the game to mentor the Sox top 3 young left handed starting pitchers in the organization at the major league level.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2015 9:35:56 GMT -5
There are 2 criteria required in which adding a player option is ALWAYS bad for the team: 1. All players/participants are rational 2. All players/participants have perfect information I'm not sure if I'd phrase it exactly that way, but in thinking about this more, there are a number of complications that come into play. From an econ 101 standpoint, the player option is obviously an assumed negative value (to the team) at the time of the grant. There really is no debate about that. However, there are a number of inefficiencies that are in play in every market, and may be more in play in an MLB market -- and even more so for a big star. 1. The Lemon problem. A trade market for a 34 year-old Price is greatly effected by the asymmetry of information - the Red Sox will be assumed to know if Price is a lemon or not; merely putting him on the market likely decreases his assumed value to other teams. We see this in all markets (though it is most clear in private used car markets, and the basis for "certified" used cars), and this is especially true in a market for contracts for professional athletes. 2. The flip side of this is an anchoring problem - Price (an assumed rational actor) has now declared himself a free agent who is worth at least 4/127 - that anchor shapes people's bidding. We see this in housing markets all the time - its virtually the reason why you pay for a selling agent (though there are debates on the value of that, too). 3. Revealed Preferences - Preferences for a player are only revealed when a market is displayed for a player. It may be true that every single team would not want older-Price at 4/127, but when a bidding takes place, revealed preferences change. Auctions - and player markets in the MLB, especially for stars are auctions -- are events when costs spiral outside of pre-bid valuations. (Crowd sourcing already prices in this bias.) My understanding of the literature is that open auctions typically produced higher bids than sealed bid auctions as people base their bid in part on what others bid (anchoring to a degree). 4. Optimism or overconfidence - This is especially true for star athletes, who need overconfidence in order to break into being a star (the urge to be overconfident has biological imperative roots - we want to be able to survive lion attacks). Price is more likely to view his market as greater than 4/127 than the Red Sox, all things being equal. There are obviously other biases too, and I know this topic has run its course, but I thought it would be worthwhile to ground what I think are people's common sense arguments (by which I mean, not rooted in a theoretical framework) for the Red Sox value in a player option with what I think of as structural issues that may give rise to that in real life. That all said, this does not mean that at the time it is given, a player option is not a benefit for the player - of course it is. The only question I'm trying to frame is under what circumstances (and I think there are some) the exercise of a player option is a net benefit for a team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2015 11:22:53 GMT -5
That's some real good analysis and you correctly identified and outlined the intuition of a lot of folks as to why trading Price is not as viable as letting him opt out.
|
|
|