|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2015 17:49:48 GMT -5
A Fangraphs article I'd love to read: an analysis of the history of opt-out clauses in (large) contracts, taking into account WAR before the contract was signed, WAR during the pre-opt-out phase, and WAR after the opt-out phase. Agreed. Greinke, Sabathia, and A-Rod were clear, clear wins before the opt-out. Trying to think of some that went the other way off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 17:50:53 GMT -5
@jcrasnick: Sources say Greinke is looking for a 5 or 6 yr deal. He wants AAV above Price. That means $31.5M or $32M a year.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,824
|
Post by wcp3 on Dec 1, 2015 17:52:26 GMT -5
Big fan of what Price brings to the table (obviously), but as with any coveted free agent signing, the contract is not great value.
Best case is that Price has three really good years in Boston and opts out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 17:53:30 GMT -5
A Fangraphs article I'd love to read: an analysis of the history of opt-out clauses in (large) contracts, taking into account WAR before the contract was signed, WAR during the pre-opt-out phase, and WAR after the opt-out phase. Agreed. Greinke, Sabathia, and A-Rod were clear, clear wins before the opt-out. Trying to think of some that went the other way off the top of my head. They were clear wins before the opt-out, but the actual opt-out prompted the Yankees to re-sign Sabathia and A-Rod which they wouldn't have had to do without the opt-out. I get that they didn't have to re-sign them, but they also would have lost players who were performing at that time if they didn't. The remaining contracts they had at the time of the opt-out were bargains. And as I've said several times, the Dodgers would absolutely love to keep Greinke for 3/71 right now.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Dec 1, 2015 17:55:12 GMT -5
@jcrasnick: Sources say Greinke is looking for a 5 or 6 yr deal. He wants AAV above Price. That means $31.5M or $32M a year. Someone remind him he's 2 years older and 15% worse.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 1, 2015 17:55:48 GMT -5
Jerry Crasnick @jcrasnick 53s53 seconds ago #Redox willingness to do a deal with no deferred $$ was a key to locking up Price so quickly.
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Dec 1, 2015 17:57:32 GMT -5
Agreed. Greinke, Sabathia, and A-Rod were clear, clear wins before the opt-out. Trying to think of some that went the other way off the top of my head. They were clear wins before the opt-out, but the actual opt-out prompted the Yankees to re-sign Sabathia and A-Rod which they wouldn't have had to do without the opt-out. I get that they didn't have to re-sign them, but they also would have lost players who were performing at that time if they didn't. And as I've said several times, the Dodgers would absolutely love to keep Greinke for 3/71 right now. I guess what I'm seeing here is: people who like the opt-out like it because they think the market has been making the wrong decision w.r.t. opt-outs (they are re-signing them to bigger contracts) and that they or the Red Sox are smarter and can avoid that. People who are ambivalent seem to think the market will correct itself, because if everyone is a fully rational actor and the market is fully efficient then of course the opt-out can only benefit the player.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 17:58:08 GMT -5
So all you need to do is be smart in the future and not sign him when he opts out. At that point Erod and Espinoza will obviously be studs anchoring the rotation so kissing him goodbye will be easy
Sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2015 17:58:28 GMT -5
Giving the player an opt-out is almost always a bad idea from the team's point of view. For it to benefit the team, the player has to stay healthy and productive enough for it to be worth opting out and the market (or the player/agent's perception of the market) must value the player significantly more than the incumbent team does. That just about never happens. For instance, the Dodgers would much rather have Greinke under contract for 3/$72m than to let him go and receive a comp pick in return.
However, if giving up the opt-out is either a prerequisite to signing the deal or doing so allows the team to sign the player sooner than it would otherwise or for cheaper than it otherwise would cost, it may be worth doing. Hard to say where that line is, though.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 1, 2015 18:01:14 GMT -5
Buster Olney @buster_ESPN 17s18 seconds ago Sources say BOS separated itself from other teams significantly in the David Price bidding -- which is what they had to do to get him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2015 18:02:42 GMT -5
A Fangraphs article I'd love to read: an analysis of the history of opt-out clauses in (large) contracts, taking into account WAR before the contract was signed, WAR during the pre-opt-out phase, and WAR after the opt-out phase. Agreed. Greinke, Sabathia, and A-Rod were clear, clear wins before the opt-out. Trying to think of some that went the other way off the top of my head. That's not evidence that giving out opt-outs are a good idea, though. The causation flows as follows: only truly elite players get opt-outs, and truly elite players tend to outperform the early years of their contract (because elite player contracts are generally structured such that the overpay comes in terms of the length of contract and not AAV).
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:04:56 GMT -5
@pgammo: The Red Sox generated $28m in spending in Boston last weekend for football and hurling. David Price part of FSM's brilliance
|
|
|
Post by theburn on Dec 1, 2015 18:06:53 GMT -5
Getting the impression Miley's on his way out soon...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2015 18:07:49 GMT -5
They were clear wins before the opt-out, but the actual opt-out prompted the Yankees to re-sign Sabathia and A-Rod which they wouldn't have had to do without the opt-out. I get that they didn't have to re-sign them, but they also would have lost players who were performing at that time if they didn't. And as I've said several times, the Dodgers would absolutely love to keep Greinke for 3/71 right now. I guess what I'm seeing here is: people who like the opt-out like it because they think the market has been making the wrong decision w.r.t. opt-outs (they are re-signing them to bigger contracts) and that they or the Red Sox are smarter and can avoid that. People who are ambivalent seem to think the market will correct itself, because if everyone is a fully rational actor and the market is fully efficient then of course the opt-out can only benefit the player. This is a great point. If you want to answer the question of whether opt-outs are a good idea from the team's point of view, the analysis should be whether any of the teams who have included an opt-out ended up better off for having included the opt-out. The answer is clearly no-- the Yankees would have much rather had Rodriguez and Sabathia on their original contracts (as evidenced by the fact that they re-signed those players to significantly larger contracts) and the Dodgers would rather have Greinke on the rest of his original contract.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 1, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -5
Gotta love Boston sports fans. Everyone cries and whines about the rotation, we then go out and sign either the best or 2nd best starter and people complain about the price (not talking about here, mainly talking about on the radio).
Did I want to spend nearly a quarter billion on 1 starter? No. But that is the cost of doing business when it comes to improving the rotation with an Ace. So I'm ecstatic. Maybe the team won't be out of it by mid-July this year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2015 18:09:50 GMT -5
Agreed. Greinke, Sabathia, and A-Rod were clear, clear wins before the opt-out. Trying to think of some that went the other way off the top of my head. That's not evidence that giving out opt-outs are a good idea, though. The causation flows as follows: only truly elite players get opt-outs, and truly elite players tend to outperform the early years of their contract (because elite player contracts are generally structured such that the overpay comes in terms of the length of contract and not AAV). Right. Which is why only truly elite players have been given opt-outs. Mid-range free agents are a higher risk to totally bust, so a team isn't going to take on that risk alone. With elite players, a team is willing to take on that risk to get the front-end years of the contract, when the player is extremely likely to exceed the value. And you can't simply compare a contract with an opt-out to the same player having the same contract without. Without an opt-out Price (and Grienke, and Sabathia) would have gotten the signing team to take on more risk in more money. Of course the Dodgers would love to have Greinke at the remaining value of his contract without the opt out! But they wouldn't have him at that money if they hadn't given him the opt out. They'd have either needed to give him more money in a guaranteed deal, or not signed him. So they instead got an elite pitcher for three years who totally blew away in terms of value what they paid him.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:10:39 GMT -5
Jmei that makes an assumption that was an option. It's not a fair comparison if you can't get that player on that contract so it's not even worth analyzing. If Price wanted an opt out he was getting it from someone so the discussion is would you rather that deal or the alternative pitcher who didn't require one.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:11:07 GMT -5
It's nitpicking to complain about the opt-out. We're guaranteed three years of David Price during his age 30 through 32 seasons for $90 million. If he chooses to opt out, then we're off the hook for his age 33 through 36 seasons. Something to like for everyone unless you're an absolute curmudgeon.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Dec 1, 2015 18:12:08 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how dropping their homegrown lefty ace in Lester for another lefty ace in Price will work out. Lester was just about the same age as Price when he signed last year, and had pretty similar numbers in his contract year. Lester is about 1.5 years older than Price, I wonder how well Lester's performance in year n will predict Price's performance in year n+1 (e.g. Lester 2015 vs Price 2016).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Dec 1, 2015 18:12:07 GMT -5
Getting the impression Miley's on his way out soon... I hope not. I think with a young starter and Buchholz in your rotation, innings eaters are valuable. He does seem like the logical move to make though.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 1, 2015 18:13:10 GMT -5
This removes all of my hesitation about the Kimbrel deal. We have our #1, and still have Swihart, Vazquez, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi, plus excess mlb or mlb-ready SP.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 1, 2015 18:13:31 GMT -5
I guess what I'm seeing here is: people who like the opt-out like it because they think the market has been making the wrong decision w.r.t. opt-outs (they are re-signing them to bigger contracts) and that they or the Red Sox are smarter and can avoid that. People who are ambivalent seem to think the market will correct itself, because if everyone is a fully rational actor and the market is fully efficient then of course the opt-out can only benefit the player. This is a great point. If you want to answer the question of whether opt-outs are a good idea from the team's point of view, the analysis should be whether any of the teams who have included an opt-out ended up better off for having included the opt-out. The answer is clearly no-- the Yankees would have much rather had Rodriguez and Sabathia on their original contracts (as evidenced by the fact that they re-signed those players to significantly larger contracts) and the Dodgers would rather have Greinke on the rest of his original contract. If we assume the the Red Sox are doomed to repeat the mistakes of those teams, sure. But if they're smart enough to walk away and the end result is three prime David Price seasons for 3/90, that's one of the best FA signings ever. That's a huge "if", I know, but someone is eventually going to figure this out and it might as well be the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:13:45 GMT -5
Jmei that makes an assumption that was an option. It's not a fair comparison if you can't get that player on that contract so it's not even worth analyzing. If Price wanted an opt out he was getting it from someone so the discussion is would you rather that deal or the alternative pitcher who didn't require one. This argument started long ago when people were suggesting opt-outs like they're a great idea for the team to hand out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:15:28 GMT -5
This is a great point. If you want to answer the question of whether opt-outs are a good idea from the team's point of view, the analysis should be whether any of the teams who have included an opt-out ended up better off for having included the opt-out. The answer is clearly no-- the Yankees would have much rather had Rodriguez and Sabathia on their original contracts (as evidenced by the fact that they re-signed those players to significantly larger contracts) and the Dodgers would rather have Greinke on the rest of his original contract. If we assume the the Red Sox are doomed to repeat the mistakes of those teams, sure. But if they're smart enough to walk away and the end result is three prime David Price seasons for 3/90, that's one of the best FA signings ever. That's a huge "if", I know, but someone is eventually going to figure this out and it might as well be the Red Sox. The thing is that you get no possible benefit that he may last more than 3 years, but you get all of the risk that you're stuck with him for 7.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Dec 1, 2015 18:16:14 GMT -5
Also I wonder if Papi announcing he's only playing 1 more year tipped the scale for Price coming to Boston!
|
|