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 bannedfromsosh on Dec 1, 2015 18:17:18 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 They mentioned this on the radio before Price signed, and I thought: That's essentially one year of what an ace will cost! Obviously the payroll implications for fans are tied to the CBA and luxury threshold, but you have to imagine the FO truly looked at this windfall of unexpected cash as a weapon for the negotiations. That's why you kept hearing they were willing to blow the competition out of the water by 30-40m. DD has now solved each of our 3 biggest issues with arguably the best player available. He also has the ability to recoup the value of Margot and Guerra by trading one of our back-of-the-rotation arms. The farm and major league team could both be in better shape on opening day 2016 than they were at season's end.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2015 18:17:43 GMT -5
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. Folks in this thread (*cough* guidas) have been making the argument that they prefer a contract with an opt-out to the same contract without one. I'm trying to disabuse them of that argument.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:17:22 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. So...
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 1, 2015 18:18:41 GMT -5
Also I wonder if Papi announcing he's only playing 1 more year tipped the scale for Price coming to Boston! Doubt it. I'm sure the Brinks truck full money that we backed up to his house tipped the scale.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:18:44 GMT -5
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. Folks in this thread (*cough* guidas) have been making the argument that they prefer a contract with an opt-out to the same contract without one. I'm trying to disabuse them of that argument. Gotcha... Carry on
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:18:57 GMT -5
Also I wonder if Papi announcing he's only playing 1 more year tipped the scale for Price coming to Boston! Yup, I'm sure The team taking a giant step back in a position where they've held a significant advantage over other teams for over a decade swayed him to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Dec 1, 2015 18:18:58 GMT -5
I think we should all be happy that this removes, or extremely lessens, the chance of Dombrowski trading more prospects (or young MLB/ready players) for a starter. We've got an ace, and we've retained a solid core of prospects. I disliked the Kimbrel deal, but it sure feels good knowing we have Kimbrel and Price now, and are retaining the likes of Moncada, Espinoza, Devers, Benintendi, etc.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:18:33 GMT -5
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. But if history is any indication, the risk of a player not opting out is similar to the risk of a player accepting a qualified offer - In other words, fairly insignificant.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 1, 2015 18:19:00 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. Substitute "usually" and you're right. This may well be an exception. First, it's of course true that a properly timed opt-out can end right at the start of a player's significant decline phase, which is to say, at a point where his consensus or apparent future value significantly exceeds his actual value. You might pay Price 3/$90 and be on the books for 4/$127, have him opt out, and then sign a 4/$135 deal and be worth $115. Or less. But I think the bigger rationale here is that you may have a short-term but not a long-term need to spend $30M for an ace. I don't think there's a team in MLB whose odds of developing someone better than Price (read: Espinoza) in the next three years are better than ours. The better your best low-minors pitching prospects are, the more an opt-out after three years on a deal like this makes sense. And Espinoza is far and away the best Sox low-minors pitching prospect in the last 40 or 50 years. While a non-declining Price who was still going to be worth his 4/$127 would be nice to retain, there are also scenarios where you'd be just at least as happy having that money to spend elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 18:19:42 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). Come on now. I like Lester too, but Price is the superior pitcher here. That's a flawed comp. Now, about the playoffs...
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 1, 2015 18:19:44 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. Consider the many assumptions here and then the small sample size. To keep it (reeally) simple, I think of it as a kind of insurance (that you perhaps can't buy). What is the risk of decline, and the value of said decline? Multiply those together and add that as a premium to the price you are paying. Done. You don't need insurance against the upside, which is that you overbid against yourself to resign the player and lose your own draft pick. Unless you want to insure against being stupid. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:20:18 GMT -5
Mike Loyko @nepd_Loyko
Hindsight, but Dave Dombrowski trading away David Price last minute of the trade deadline, saved him the 12th pick in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:22:13 GMT -5
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. But if history is any indication, the risk of a player not opting out is similar to the risk of a player accepting a qualified offer - In other words, fairly insignificant. I'm talking about the risk of his performance more than anything. The opt-outs are usually a no-brainer decision based on how he has done.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:24:48 GMT -5
But if history is any indication, the risk of a player not opting out is similar to the risk of a player accepting a qualified offer - In other words, fairly insignificant. I'm talking about the risk of his performance more than anything. The opt-outs are usually a no-brainer decision based on how he has done. What's it matter one way or the other? If he was a complete flop from day one, then you would have been stuck with the whole seven years either way. On the other hand, if he outperforms, then you gained additional benefit for three years. Seriously, naysayers are simply expressing greed rather than taking time to be appreciative about what has been accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 1, 2015 18:25:29 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. Substitute "usually" and you're right. This may well be an exception. First, it's of course true that a properly timed opt-out can end right at the start of a player's significant decline phase, which is to say, at a point where his consensus or apparent future value significantly exceeds his actual value. You might pay Price 3/$90 and be on the books for 4/$127, have him opt out, and then sign a 4/$135 deal and be worth $115. Or less. But I think the bigger rationale here is that you may have a short-term but not a long-term need to spend $30M for an ace. I don't think there's a team in MLB whose odds of developing someone better than Price (read: Espinoza) in the next three years are better than ours. The better your best low-minors pitching prospects are, the more an opt-out after three years on a deal like this makes sense. And Espinoza is far and away the best Sox low-minors pitching prospect in the last 40 or 50 years. While a non-declining Price who was still going to be worth his 4/$127 would be nice to retain, there are also scenarios where you'd be just at least as happy having that money to spend elsewhere. Whoa, hat tip to the idea of likelihood of cheap replacement. That is positively Dombro-esque thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 1, 2015 18:25:48 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 These two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:26:23 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. Substitute "usually" and you're right. This may well be an exception. First, it's of course true that a properly timed opt-out can end right at the start of a player's significant decline phase, which is to say, at a point where his consensus or apparent future value significantly exceeds his actual value. You might pay Price 3/$90 and be on the books for 4/$127, have him opt out, and then sign a 4/$135 deal and be worth $115. Or less. But I think the bigger rationale here is that you may have a short-term but not a long-term need to spend $30M for an ace. I don't think there's a team in MLB whose odds of developing someone better than Price (read: Espinoza) in the next three years are better than ours. The better your best low-minors pitching prospects are, the more an opt-out after three years on a deal like this makes sense. And Espinoza is far and away the best Sox low-minors pitching prospect in the last 40 or 50 years. While a non-declining Price who was still going to be worth his 4/$127 would be nice to retain, there are also scenarios where you'd be just at least as happy having that money to spend elsewhere. And if Price was worth 4/127 or more at that point, he could be traded for a similar package to what Hamels got. And you're also not factoring the possibility that he tears his UCL in year 2 and we get one good Lackey year out of him in 2020. There is very little upside to this and tons of downside risk. The opt-out removes the upside.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:27:06 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 These two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another. I don't even know what that means
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Dec 1, 2015 18:27:40 GMT -5
[..] DD has now solved each of our 3 biggest issues with arguably the best player available. He also has the ability to recoup the value of Margot and Guerra by trading one of our back-of-the-rotation arms. The farm and major league team could both be in better shape on opening day 2016 than they were at season's end. Man, that'd be downright Machiavellian. And you have the 12th pick still.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:28:59 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 These two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another. It's money going in and out of Henry's pockets tho, no? I could've misinterpreted Gammons
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:29:44 GMT -5
And if Price was worth 4/127 or more at that point, he could be traded for a similar package to what Hamels got. And you're also not factoring the possibility that he tears his UCL in year 2 and we get one good Lackey year out of him in 2020. There is very little upside to this and tons of downside risk. The opt-out removes the upside. So what then would have made you happy? Care to explain exactly how you would have preferred the contract be structured?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 1, 2015 18:30:18 GMT -5
Its been like an hour or so....can we change the 2016 projected rosters already? Jeeeeez....
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 1, 2015 18:30:25 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. League-average inning eaters can be really valuable. But he approaches having negative value to you if he's your fifth starter and he's pushing two better pitchers to the bullpen. You want the best players on the field. If you have to sacrifice important depth to make that happen, you just want to make sure you retain or acquire enough depth to cover yourself. Miley and an organizational player for: -- A really good young reliever who projects to give us 3-4 years of elite setup work; -- A AAA starting pitcher with an option year left, who has a glimmer of upside left as a failed top prospect, and projects to be a bit above replacement level right now in MLB and slots in as your #9 starter; -- An interesting low-minors lottery ticket.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:30:08 GMT -5
The opt out doesn't eliminate he upside only the upside in relation to their being no opt out in the same deal. However, we all know that's not realistic. The Sox were not looking at these two options:
1. 7/215 without and opt out
2. 7/215 with an opt out
Was more like:
1. 7/215 with an opt out
2. Don't sign the player
3. 8/265 no opt out
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 18:30:40 GMT -5
Why would he ever opt out at 33 years old? Unless salaries are go up 40-50% over the next few years, there's no way he opts out. zach greinke
|
|
|