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 redsox04071318champs on Dec 3, 2015 14:00:32 GMT -5
I'm amazed there is so much re: the opt-out.
I'm not sure where there is so much chatter about it. Opt-out are always great for players and is in the contract mainly for them. Obviously if David Price pitches like David Price over the next three years or at least by 2018, he will most likely opt out and look for more money/year and a contract that takes him near 40 years old.
Normally opt-outs aren't that great for teams, but in this case it could work out for the Sox. The free agent market is pretty flush with top notch talent in the winter of 2018-2019, so the Sox would have very little problem reallocating the money and if there is compensation if he walks away then even better, the Sox get a draft pick.
That's if they have the willpower to walk away. I would think they probably would which is why I don't think the Sox minded too terribly that the opt out was part of the contract.
If David Price declines then the Sox will have him the duration of his contract.
But shed no tears for the Red Sox. They know what they're getting into. They know seven years is a risky length of contract for a pitcher 30 years old, but they were smart enough to get the guy most likely to succeed during that length of the contract. It's a gamble the Sox needed to take. It's a lot more palatable than having to deal some combo of Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi, Devers, Swihart, and Kopech to make the White Sox surrender Sale, or the Indians surrender Carrasco or the A's to surrender Gray or the Mets to surrender Harvey. It's certainly better than losing a Bogaerts or a Betts in a deal for an ace pitcher.
So I'm pretty thrilled with this signing and ecstatic to still have the above aforementioned players still in the organization. To me this signing was a no-brainer and I'm not sure why so much analysis has to go into the opt-out, but if discussing it ad nauseum floats your boat then that's cool, too.
If the Sox didn't agree to the opt-out and didn't outbid the Cardinals by $30 million, then the Sox are surrendering their 12th pick for Greinke who's two years older and coming off the best year of his career), gambling with Cueto, or ripping up the farm system. Because there's no way David Price is a Red Sox without the huge annual salary and the opt-out clause.
I say just be thrilled to have Price - the Sox just became a lot better over the next few years, enjoy the next three years, and see where it takes them. Price would have options, but fortunately, so would the Red Sox. And if he does suffer an injury of some sort that makes him stick around, let's hope he rebounds from injury the way Lackey did - he certainly would have plenty of time to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 3, 2015 14:08:31 GMT -5
A nice set of contingencies that get into the realm of behavioral economics. Thanks for the list.
My argument is that MLB can and should be modeled as an ecosystem, one that has such behaviors and the rules that drive them motivating the agents in their demands. I'll admit that would be a real task, and it would require computing power to run the model over and over again using different assumptions, such as those about a future CBA.
I think that's a better way to approach it than naive assumptions about ultra rational actors and perfect information.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 3, 2015 15:01:01 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. Thanks for adding these points to the discussion - I think they all reflect how imperfect information or irrational players are possibilities. (i would think remote - but of course that is debatable) Are you the 'Josh' that Cameron is quoting here? If so - mad props. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/on-opt-outs-and-risk-mitigation/
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 3, 2015 15:03:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 3, 2015 15:16:45 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. Little surprised like 4-5 people haven't gone crazy because you called Miley a #5 in AL East. I called him a 4/5 and wow people didn't agree with that. I agree that Owens could equal or surpass Mileys production next year, but I would have to get a very good return to move him. If you put Kelly in pen, which I agree with, your left with Wright, Owens and Johnson as your starting depth. I don't want to move Kelly around and weaken pen if a starter goes down, would only want to see that if there were no other options. Now Wright is out of options, maybe he goes to the pen, but I don't think that's going to happen. Don't think he clears waivers, so chances are he's gone. That leaves Owens and Johnson, and Johnson was injured at the end of last year. I plan on Owens getting around 16 of Clays starts when he gets injured like he always does. Now if you can get a top 50-75 prospect that you love like some on this site think you can, I trade Miley in a Second. Would then make sure to keep Wright around in pen or keep Kelly stretched out in Pen knowing that he would be making a bunch of starts.
You could always use Miley to help us get a better pitcher, which is what I would do. I love Owens and his upside, but really want him as our #6 starter for depth next year.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 3, 2015 15:19:35 GMT -5
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. Thanks for adding these points to the discussion - I think they all reflect how imperfect information or irrational players are possibilities. (i would think remote - but of course that is debatable) Are you the 'Josh' that Cameron is quoting here? If so - mad props. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/on-opt-outs-and-risk-mitigation/Agreed, I think these factors are relatively remote compared to the value of the opt-out as estimated by the difference between the Player's demand without an opt-out (assuming there was one) and the actual deal with the opt-out (7/217). These factors would also be relatively remote compared to the elephant in the room, the monopoly inefficiency of the luxury cap now, and later, as well as the willingness or ability of a given team to exceed it, now or later. But hey, Scrolls just wanna have fun (Cuz that's what they get paid to do. Ohh, scrolls just wanna have fun - C. Lauper-esque)
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 3, 2015 15:29:49 GMT -5
This is good... The rest is small sample bias, or has no meaningful value, such as this: There always appears to be little to explain anything, up until the time you've identified the explanation. Why wouldn't the Red Sox have an internal explanation for why a pitcher like Price will stay healthy? (if the author couldn't find the explanation, then no one can?) I guess it takes a certain arrogance to write articles simply because you have a byline at a paper and can get your own work published.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 3, 2015 15:45:20 GMT -5
It's a nice read. Just wish he used something like a total inning amount and WAR above 20 , rather then the 5 years of 200 plus innings he did. Using his method it leaves off players like Kevin Brown, Max Scherzer, Zach Grienke and John Lackey just to name a few. These are the type of players you need to be looking at.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 3, 2015 16:19:31 GMT -5
Have to add one last thing about the opt out. I agree the opt out favors the player, if he's bad he doesn't opt out team has to pay whole contract, if he's really good he opts out and gets more money. That's not something you can argue. That's doesn't mean if he opts out that it's a negative for the team in my opinion(have stated my reason many times in past posts). Now the counter to this made on this board is that you would have him signed to a below market deal and his trade value would be worth more then then the pick you would get for letting him walk. So you would rather a straight 7 year deal with no opt out.
My question is what would have been your perfect length for a Price deal if you were GM? I only ask because 95% of posters agreed before we signed Price that the backend of a 7 year deal would not be good for the team and thus would have had him sign a shorter term deal if you could.
My other question is how much more would you have paid Price to not get a player option? Sabthia got 30 extra million when he opted out, assuming risk and inflation, I think 21 million more would be a good guess on the price of having Price not get an opt out. Would you look at the opt out differently if the options were 7 years 217 million with opt out and 7 years 238 million with no opt out?
I just had to ask because almost all of the talk about the opt out being bad for the team most of the time are using contract data from his deal that includes an opt out and I think we all agree we would have had to pay more to get him to sign without an opt out.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 3, 2015 17:51:51 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. Little surprised like 4-5 people haven't gone crazy because you called Miley a #5 in AL East. I called him a 4/5 and wow people didn't agree with that. I agree that Owens could equal or surpass Mileys production next year, but I would have to get a very good return to move him. If you put Kelly in pen, which I agree with, your left with Wright, Owens and Johnson as your starting depth. I don't want to move Kelly around and weaken pen if a starter goes down, would only want to see that if there were no other options. Now Wright is out of options, maybe he goes to the pen, but I don't think that's going to happen. Don't think he clears waivers, so chances are he's gone. That leaves Owens and Johnson, and Johnson was injured at the end of last year. I plan on Owens getting around 16 of Clays starts when he gets injured like he always does. Now if you can get a top 50-75 prospect that you love like some on this site think you can, I trade Miley in a Second. Would then make sure to keep Wright around in pen or keep Kelly stretched out in Pen knowing that he would be making a bunch of starts.
You could always use Miley to help us get a better pitcher, which is what I would do. I love Owens and his upside, but really want him as our #6 starter for depth next year.
I just think finding depth is easier to find these days. There will always be a Rich Hill out there or a Chris Young type that can be easy to find. No need to stretch out Kelly if you deem him to be a bullpen piece. It's no guarantee that a team picks up Stephen Wright off waivers either. He's valuable to this organization because this team knows how good a knuckle ball can be but other teams might not be enamored with having a 31 year old Wright as a number 5 somewhere. The Sox also have Couch in aaa too now. When you're a big market team like the Sox, it should be easy to acquire a number 5 from virtually anywhere using just money or C type prospects in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 3, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5
A lot of people in business believe strongly in the need to incentivize employees. Opt outs are somewhat effective in that manner from a management perspective. You want the player to try ....right? I'm not questioning whether it mainly benefits the player but the benefits to the team are not irrelevant. There are some benefits to the team.
If things aren't going well the relationship can be so bad the player just wants out and if they have an opt out that can benefit the team as well.
If the player perceives it as tangible value, as they should usually, an opt out could be in lieu of more up front money. It's a negotiating bargaining chip.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 3, 2015 20:25:36 GMT -5
Unless injuries impact us, ideally we find a suitor for Wright before the end of spring training because if you can't option him he needs to be on the 25 man. I don't see him in DD's projected rotation and I don't like him as the long man but I'd do it if we can't trade him to a team who wants him in their rotation.
Who knows. He probably puts up a sub 4.00 era in San Diego. They would think he's a huge find considering the cost of starting pitching. I think he's worth something.
It's interesting Baseball America projects Guerra as San Diego's #1, over Margot.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Dec 3, 2015 21:50:23 GMT -5
13 minutes ago Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats JDMartinez tells MLBNR that this spring running joke w Price was going to BOS, "He would love to play there, didn't think they would offer." More Martinez "Texting Price, he is really happy... talking to Rusney today I told him he is the best, the best teammate." Teammate JD Martinez said they joked with Price that he would sign with the Sox when he became a free agent because he loves the city and the intensity on the big stage. Glad to hear he wanted to come to Boston. So much for the Papi hate and Twitter racism. If a player were concerned about racism, isn't St. Louis the LAST place they'd consider signing? Not trying to make a political point; just wanted to point out that the whole David Price is going to St. Louis because Boston is racist stuff just struck me as borderline surreal.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 3, 2015 22:12:53 GMT -5
Unless injuries impact us, ideally we find a suitor for Wright before the end of spring training because if you can't option him he needs to be on the 25 man. I don't see him in DD's projected rotation and I don't like him as the long man but I'd do it if we can't trade him to a team who wants him in their rotation. Who knows. He probably puts up a sub 4.00 era in San Diego. They would think he's a huge find considering the cost of starting pitching. I think he's worth something. It's interesting Baseball America projects Guerra as San Diego's #1, over Margot. I don't think it's any guarantee that Wright even gets claimed off of waivers. No team wants knuckleball in the bullpen, ESPECIALLY in extra innings (remember that 19 inning game against New York where he blew 2-3 saves in extra innings?). In my opinion not many teams have a fit and Wright really hasn't done much to really guarantee a roster spot anywhere. Maybe a team needs depth because of injuries at the end of spring training but other than that I think there's a really high chance that Wright is dfa'd and outrighted to Pawtucket. How many teams in the league even has a catcher that's able to even catch a knuckle ball? That's part of the equation with Wright and why I don't think it's a given that he's claimed. Actually I think there's more of a chance of him being in aaa again, although I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 4, 2015 0:43:47 GMT -5
Can David price help Owens become a better pitcher this spring? Can price help Owens find the consistentcy that Owens desperately needs to take the next step in his development?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 4, 2015 1:37:22 GMT -5
Can David price help Owens become a better pitcher this spring? Can price help Owens find the consistentcy that Owens desperately needs to take the next step in his development? The only thing that I wish is that Owens would go on a Pablo Sandoval diet and gain some weight so he can add some mph to his fastball. That would make his change up truly deadly. Yes having Price around should help dramatically when it comes to gaining experience however. Either way at the very least he is a number 4 starter in the next one to two years though.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 4, 2015 1:38:38 GMT -5
Can David price help Owens become a better pitcher this spring? Can price help Owens find the consistentcy that Owens desperately needs to take the next step in his development? "Desperately" ? He's 23, relax.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Dec 4, 2015 2:23:00 GMT -5
If shark is looking at 100$m then it make Porcellos deal not so bad and prices actually good
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Dec 4, 2015 3:12:32 GMT -5
Anybody know at what time the Price press conference is going to be?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 4, 2015 3:39:15 GMT -5
Anybody know at what time the Price press conference is going to be? I'm not sure but I'm really interested to see if Dave D. Will come out and say if they're done spending money in free agency. The question will probably be asked and I'm interested to see what he says. Could have a potential affect of whether the Sox go after Chris Davis and stick him in LF for a year and move him to first after Ortiz retires and Hanley moves to dh.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 4, 2015 4:43:18 GMT -5
Some interesting stuff regarding the Price signing in Speier's '108 stitches'.
According to Speier, John Henry met with only one free agent this off-season, David Price. At the initial meeting at Price's house, they offered $200m then later upped it to $217m when they heard of the Cardinals $180m offer, in order to get it done.
Apparently go to 31 is John Henry's new motto....
|
|
|
Post by kyla13 on Dec 4, 2015 7:25:55 GMT -5
Some interesting stuff regarding the Price signing in Speier's '108 stitches'. According to Speier, John Henry met with only one free agent this off-season, David Price. At the initial meeting at Price's house, they offered $200m then later upped it to $217m when they heard of the Cardinals $180m offer, in order to get it done. Apparently go to 31 is John Henry's new motto.... Good thing the Dodgers are so fixated with Greinke. While 31 million per for 7 years is a huge risk, I feared the bidding would have reached 240 million had LAD or the Cubs joined in. Now the Dodgers might have to guarantee a sixth year to secure Greinke.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Dec 4, 2015 7:39:01 GMT -5
Can David price help Owens become a better pitcher this spring? Can price help Owens find the consistentcy that Owens desperately needs to take the next step in his development? Actually my innitial hope was Henry upgrading Prices Changeup to help him hold value rather than blowing his arm off in the second half of his contract...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 4, 2015 8:05:44 GMT -5
My other question is how much more would you have paid Price to not get a player option? Sabthia got 30 extra million when he opted out, assuming risk and inflation, I think 21 million more would be a good guess on the price of having Price not get an opt out. Would you look at the opt out differently if the options were 7 years 217 million with opt out and 7 years 238 million with no opt out? I just had to ask because almost all of the talk about the opt out being bad for the team most of the time are using contract data from his deal that includes an opt out and I think we all agree we would have had to pay more to get him to sign without an opt out. There never would have been 12 pages of argument if that was the position of everyone who likes the opt-out, but it wasn't. People including you were saying you wanted to include the player opt-out as a possible benefit to the team not having him in years 4-7, not because it would reduce the dollar amount of the contract. I've repeatedly said that the opt-out was fine if it's what got him signed here over other teams. I'll also agree it was fine if it reduced the overall money. But I'm not going to say that when comparing equal contracts, we should add a player opt-out to help the team out. That's what people were saying and that's what caused the argument.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 4, 2015 10:19:20 GMT -5
I'm amazed there is so much re: the opt-out. ....So I'm pretty thrilled with this signing and ecstatic to still have the above aforementioned players still in the organization. To me this signing was a no-brainer and I'm not sure why so much analysis has to go into the opt-out, but if discussing it ad nauseum floats your boat then that's cool, too. Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3138/red-sox-sign-david-price?page=15#ixzz3tMbVtcqrI think in your process of ridiculing discussion on the opt-out you too have over-considered it. I don't understand a lick of the discussion either, I mean it's not as if MLB contracts aren't fully guaranteed! Looking to Kershaw's deal, I think it's safe to assume that Price was going to get $32-33m over 7 years. Let's call it $230m because I like round numbers. Let's also assume that DD was going to acquire a top starter. How did he do? He signed arguably the best available starter for less then his market cost and kept his 12th pick, to boot. For that, he gave Price an opt-out after his 3rd year, which is precisely when a smart team would want to dump him anyway. So, He didn't pay market rate for his stud starter, retains the possibility, no, likelihood, that Price relieves him of the back end of his contract opposed to paying those guaranteed years, period, and keeps his 12th pick. What's not to love? The 3rd year opt-out is 10x better than a guaranteed 7 years which DD was going to pay. As a bonus, he gets an extra motivated Price for years 1-3. See Ben? This is how real GM's deal - smartly.
|
|
|