|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:30:53 GMT -5
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. The main source of possible upside to a 7 year deal is that he declines slower than expected and stays healthy and they get more than 3 years of quality pitching from him. The opt-out removes that upside. I don't think it's smart for teams to take on all of the risk and the player takes none. If this is the only way they could have signed him, fine. But I can't take the argument that it's smart to hand out opt-outs because they benefit the team. |
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 1, 2015 18:31:52 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. According to the Tigers' owner, the owner told Dombro in advance that Dombro was not being rehired. Dombro and Henry were best buds from their Marlins days. Machiavellian to save the 12th pick for the Sox by trading Price? That may be no exaggeration at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:33:51 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 Sure, but Zack Greinke suffers from a fairly common neurological disorder that makes him like money. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 1, 2015 18:33:59 GMT -5
If you think they're not gonna re-sign him after the opt-out you must also be assuming we have a new GM by that point. And I'm of the mind that we may.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 18:33:40 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 like out exactly how you would have preferred the contract be structured? I'm only arguing with people who think that opt-outs are beneficial to the team. There is really just one way that's true - If he tore his UCL in 4 years (or something similar) right after he opted out and signed a new contract elsewhere. That is a very specific timeline that I doubt happens. It's probably more likely that it happens before 3 years is up if it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 1, 2015 18:34:18 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. Right, but that is precisely why they shouldn't have resigned those players to longer deals.....and thats exactly what fans of the opt-outs are hoping for as well (that we wouldn't re-sign Price after 3 yrs). The opt out has a fair chance of benefiting both the player and the current team, while not benefiting the team who decides to pay the premium on the player's older seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 1, 2015 18:37:09 GMT -5
I hate the Lester comparison talk. Lester is not an Ace. Around June 1, 2013 people were questioning if they would exercise his 2014 option because he was so bad for a long period of time. Then he got hot down the stretch and during his contract year. Lester is very good and can pitch great but has not been consistently great like Price. Price is in the discussion for a top pitcher in baseball year after year. Lester isn't
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 1, 2015 18:37:17 GMT -5
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. I factored in the risk in my initial post when I called it massive^3. It's true that if after three years you knew he was about to decline and no one else did, you'd trade him. The opt-out is interesting, and to my mind not undesirable, because it takes it of management's cognitively-biased hands. The scenario that's on the table is opting out after three years, the Sox deciding to spend the money elsewhere but not believing the new deal is a bad one, and then finding themselves very happy it played out that way. Imagine the MFY's had they felt they had no need to re-sign Sabathia or ARod. |
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:38:20 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. Right, but that is precisely why they shouldn't have resigned those players to longer deals.....and thats exactly what fans of the opt-outs are hoping for as well (that we wouldn't re-sign Price after 3 yrs). The opt out has a fair chance of benefiting both the player and the current team, while not benefiting the team who decides to pay the premium on the player's older seasons. Letting them walk is easy to say in hindsight, but it would take a gm with balls of steel to let them go with no obvious replacement ready to go, especially in a market with overwhelming pressure coming from your boss and the fans. |
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 18:39:30 GMT -5
Unbelievable skill demonstrated by Dombrowski in offering $30 more than any competitor
|
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:41:06 GMT -5
Unbelievable skill demonstrated by Dombrowski in offering $30 more than any competitor So put you down for hating this deal? I suppose you are going to really miss the battle for protected pick forum |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 1, 2015 18:42:01 GMT -5
Like I said in another thread, Dombrowski had three needs, and he just bought (with money and minor league talent) the best person at each level. It ain't that complicated a strategy but probably the best one to win this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:42:58 GMT -5
Unbelievable skill demonstrated by Dombrowski in offering $30 more than any competitor So put you down for hating this deal? I suppose you are going to really miss the battle for protected pick forum Oh great. You just gave the haters extra fuel to hate on this deal - Now, they'll be whining about losing a pick for only three years of David Price. |
|
|
|
Post by bannedfromsosh on Dec 1, 2015 18:43:25 GMT -5
1.95 career ERA at Fenway.....I'd say that is an important factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 1, 2015 18:43:52 GMT -5
@mods
can we add a poll to the thread, grading the signing?
|
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:45:08 GMT -5
So put you down for hating this deal? I suppose you are going to really miss the battle for protected pick forum Oh great. You just gave the haters extra fuel to hate on this deal - Now, they'll be whining about losing a pick for only three years of David Price. But they didn't lose a pick? I'm lost here. The Red Sox got better, didn't give up a draft pick and should compete for a division title in a weakened AL east. |
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 1, 2015 18:45:09 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. Right, but that is precisely why they shouldn't have resigned those players to longer deals.....and thats exactly what fans of the opt-outs are hoping for as well (that we wouldn't re-sign Price after 3 yrs). The opt out has a fair chance of benefiting both the player and the current team, while not benefiting the team who decides to pay the premium on the player's older seasons. That way of saying it accords nicely with ericmvan's idea of the likelihood of a cheap replacement already in the Red Sox low minors. where the opt-out could benefit the player and the current team. But really it's pretty obvious what must have happened here, Red Sox needed a deal today so they wouldn't lose out on Greinke. How to reduce the transaction costs of negotiating a deal? Opt-out clause to the rescue! (Add a premium to the cost to cover the risk of the decline). Brilliant really. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,823
|
Post by nomar on Dec 1, 2015 18:45:25 GMT -5
Gonna be heartbreaking when he chooses a Rays hat for the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 1, 2015 18:48:07 GMT -5
Oh great. You just gave the haters extra fuel to hate on this deal - Now, they'll be whining about losing a pick for only three years of David Price. But they didn't lose a pick? I'm lost here. The Red Sox got better, didn't give up a draft pick and should compete for a division title in a weakened AL east. Damn. You're right! I forgot about the fact that he was traded midseason.  |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 1, 2015 18:48:45 GMT -5
Can't wait for next offseason when we're debating how much we'd have to eat of the remaining 190m to dump him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 1, 2015 18:48:23 GMT -5
These two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another. I don't even know what that means 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 The Red Sox put out a press release earlier today trumpeting how much business the football and hurling events at Fenway last month generated for the city of Boston. I think the point that Gammons is trying to make is that since Fenway Sports Group was able to put on events that raised so much money for the city of Boston, they obviously also did a good job by signing Price. If that is what he was trying to say, basic logic says that those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Of course, maybe I'm missing something. |
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Dec 1, 2015 18:52:08 GMT -5
we needed a staff ace to sit atop the rotation and free agency is always going to be an overpay. I'm happy to see Price coming in my only concern and it's minimal (Price, Eduardo Rodriguez, Wade Miley, Henry Owens and Brian Johnson are all left handed) thats why I was hoping for Greinke
|
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2015 18:52:41 GMT -5
I don't even know what that means It's money going in and out of Henry's pockets tho, no? I could've misinterpreted Gammons The Red Sox put out a press release earlier today trumpeting how much business the football and hurling events at Fenway last month generated for the city of Boston. I think the point that Gammons is trying to make is that since Fenway Sports Group was able to put on events that raised so much money for the city of Boston, they obviously also did a good job by signing Price. If that is what he was trying to say, basic logic says that those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Of course, maybe I'm missing something. Ahh gotcha, I thought Gammons was saying it generated 28.5 for Fenway sports group, not the city in general. Makes more sense it was city wide via all the people visiting given Norte dames nationwide support amongst other factors. |
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 1, 2015 18:57:20 GMT -5
So now Owens gets handcuffed to a briefcase of cash and Hanley?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,823
|
Post by nomar on Dec 1, 2015 18:59:02 GMT -5
So now Owens gets handcuffed to a briefcase of cash and Hanley? So we can do what? Throw another briefcase at Chris Davis? Pass. |
|
