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, Chris Sale Agree to Extension (5 years/$145 mill)
|
Post by soxjim on Aug 4, 2019 23:07:07 GMT -5
Fangraphs shows his velocity is down. As for others who keep looking to compare Porcello vs Sale to justify Sale-- -- imo that's no good. We shouldn't have wanted either for now $30m or $25.5m -- if we had waited. Who would you prefer as a comp? Eovaldi? J.A. Happ? Charlie Morton? When these guys are getting what there getting then complaining about Sale's price tag isn't really taking the market into context. The Sox might have received a discount if they waited, but guys with names get paid so I kind of doubt it would have been enough to justify waiting. No -- I wouldn't prefer a comp. I'd prefer that if you pay $30m you are not buying a 4 ERA guy. You don't "buy" that at $30m. It would definitely have justified waiting because the Sox have shown to have an owner looking to spend the most. Let the other teams prove it and see if they would go over what the SOx would spend. If not-- then if Sale is your 4 ERA guy. If Charlie Morton is your 4 ERA guy. If Happ is your 4 ERA guy. You don't go and spend $30m on these guys. You go after "Riya" instead. The SOx have the best owner in MLB. Challenge the other teams to beat him before you waive the towel due to being scared that someone "might."
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 5, 2019 10:38:06 GMT -5
Quick hijack, but outside of an outstanding June and a solid May, Damaineah wasn't that far off if he was referring to this season. His WAR is only worth 1.0 on the year and he's a -3 DRS. I mean, when he's hot, he's one of the best hitters in the game, but otherwise he's Sandy Leon. It's weird. They just didn't have any internal replacement options and had bigger needs since their offense is fine. I would move on from him in the off-season. Perhaps if we want to carry this conversation on we should extract it to the JBJ thread. As far as Sale, he could very well be worth every penny of his extension, but no matter what, the Red Sox likely lost value on the deal by not waiting till the end of the year. The more he struggles the less likely it is that he makes 30 million AAV in the off-season as an over 30 pitcher. If they wait until the end of the year they're competing with 29 other teams, and are you sure no one would offer him more? I bet some team that sees a window in the next few years would give him more years, at least, and take on the downside risk on the back end of the contract. Hell, the Phillies gave Bryce Harper 13/330. They'll be paying him a bajillion a year through his age-39 season. If the season ended today? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 5, 2019 12:01:15 GMT -5
If they wait until the end of the year they're competing with 29 other teams, and are you sure no one would offer him more? I bet some team that sees a window in the next few years would give him more years, at least, and take on the downside risk on the back end of the contract. Hell, the Phillies gave Bryce Harper 13/330. They'll be paying him a bajillion a year through his age-39 season. If the season ended today? Yes. Yeah actually, looking at the other big-money pitcher contracts I think you're right. None of them came after a down year like Sale's having (even if it's not quite as down as people seem to think).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2019 9:06:57 GMT -5
You can tell this is a stupid argument because where was all the outrage when the contract was signed? Oh but now with hindsight...
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 9:47:35 GMT -5
You can tell this is a stupid argument because where was all the outrage when the contract was signed? Oh but now with hindsight... You're right. There was no fist pounding. Some question marks/ concerns, but no one was ANGRY or immediately calling it an albatross right off the announcement. It's also very possible he wins the Cy Young this year and earns his contract. It's just a bad look and they could have saved money. With that said, that's the job of the president/GM to identify the right guys to lock up. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on Sale. I think they should have waited, but I think the reason both sides agreed to a contract is that they wanted Sale to take the early season easy and for a guy heading into free agency I don't know how you'd agree to that. I think the extension was to get him to agree to the plan.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2019 9:58:40 GMT -5
You can tell this is a stupid argument because where was all the outrage when the contract was signed? Oh but now with hindsight... You're right. There was no fist pounding. Some question marks/ concerns, but no one was ANGRY or immediately calling it an albatross right off the announcement. It's also very possible he wins the Cy Young this year and earns his contract. It's just a bad look and they could have saved money. With that said, that's the job of the president/GM to identify the right guys to lock up. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on Sale. I think they should have waited, but I think the reason both sides agreed to a contract is that they wanted Sale to take the early season easy and for a guy heading into free agency I don't know how you'd agree to that. I think the extension was to get him to agree to the plan. The Red Sox know there are very few guys like vintage Chris Sale around. Cole is highly touted but let's face it - he's nowhere near what Chris Sale is when Sale is his dominating self. He was like Randy Johnson light - and the light part was the innings/bulk of performance, not necessarily the rate stats. Dombrowski knew that if Chris Sale was vintage Chris Sale in 2019 just like he was in 2018, the Red Sox would have to pay Zach Greinke type money to sign him. Sale had been vintage Sale for most of the past seven years. Sale was pitching as well as he ever had in 2018 until his injury. Then, yeah, he looked shaky. But just a reminder as to how dominant he could be, please re-watch the 9th inning of the World Series clincher. Yeah, the Dodgers were defeated and lifeless at that point, but his stuff was nasty. He brought Machado down to his knee. With rest, it wasn't unreasonable to think they could have vintage Sale for a few more years. You sign him to 5 years $145 million, that's a lot cheaper than what he costs if his 2019 was anything like his 2017 or 2018 seasons. And if he does, you're trying to sign him and Mookie and you know Price is coming back, Dombrowski gambled on signing him early. I think in the back of his mind was the scenario of what if Sale was dominant again and leaves? Who would be the ace they get to replace him? The answer is they wouldn't have one. Unfortunately that's where they are now because if Sale doesn't rebound they don't have a true ace for that rotation for the foreseeable future. The only difference is now the Sox are on the hook for $145 million, which is a huge difference - don't want to minimize it, but the fact still remains is that that money wasn't going to be earmarked for a pitcher who was going to give what Sale gave or anything close to that. Cole gets all the attention because 1) he's very good and 2) who else is there?? Over the next few years it's still not guaranteed that Cole will pitcher better than Sale. He's likelier to stay healthy and provide more innings - that much is true, but he might not pitch better going forward. We still don't know for sure. Given all those factors, that's what Dombrowski was looking at when he made his decision, that plus the personal side. You have a leader of the club who very much wants to stay with the organization. That matters, too. Not every player wants to be a Boston Red Sox. Chris Sale very much did. So no, at the time, I was quite cool with it. I thought it might be a package equal to David Price's deal but it was far less, so I thought it was a good compromise. It might not work out - it might be a long five years, but I don't begrudge Dombrowski for making his decision. I mean if you sign Gerit Cole, it might cost more than Sale and for longer and maybe you only get a couple of strong worthwhile years. It was a defensible decision to bring back Sale when he did.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 11:35:09 GMT -5
You can tell this is a stupid argument because where was all the outrage when the contract was signed? Oh but now with hindsight... You're right. There was no fist pounding. Some question marks/ concerns, but no one was ANGRY or immediately calling it an albatross right off the announcement. It's also very possible he wins the Cy Young this year and earns his contract. It's just a bad look and they could have saved money. With that said, that's the job of the president/GM to identify the right guys to lock up. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on Sale. I think they should have waited, but I think the reason both sides agreed to a contract is that they wanted Sale to take the early season easy and for a guy heading into free agency I don't know how you'd agree to that. I think the extension was to get him to agree to the plan. Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!"
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 11:41:43 GMT -5
You're right. There was no fist pounding. Some question marks/ concerns, but no one was ANGRY or immediately calling it an albatross right off the announcement. It's also very possible he wins the Cy Young this year and earns his contract. It's just a bad look and they could have saved money. With that said, that's the job of the president/GM to identify the right guys to lock up. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on Sale. I think they should have waited, but I think the reason both sides agreed to a contract is that they wanted Sale to take the early season easy and for a guy heading into free agency I don't know how you'd agree to that. I think the extension was to get him to agree to the plan. Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!" I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 11:46:43 GMT -5
Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!" I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm. Sounds great in theory. Let's say they saved 8 million dollars to spend on a reliever this past offseason. That could've netted us Cody Allen. Would've been pretty good at the time, he was coming off a down year but he had a good track record prior to that so maybe he reverts to form, right? Cody Allen has a 6.26 ERA and a -0.2 WAR this year. Point is, you can theorize about winning on the margins but it's so, so hard to do. Betting on superstars is almost always the right move.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 6, 2019 11:50:42 GMT -5
Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!" I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm. There's a difference between buying something for less money and forgoing buying something in order to save money. Buying something for less money is essentially always good, because you have that thing and more money. But not buying a thing in order to save money is not good if you need that thing more than you need that extra money. Extremely broad analogy: if I have $15,000 budgeted for a roof and I end up able to get it for $12,500 that's good because I have a roof and I have $2,500. If I save $15,000 that I have budgeted for a roof and then I just don't buy a roof I have $15,000 but also a big problem when it's raining out. Saving $10 million on Mookie Betts and still having Mookie Betts is, from a team's standpoint, better than paying full price. Not having a starting pitcher because you chose to use that money on just having more money instead of having a starting pitcher is gonna get leaky.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 6, 2019 12:30:50 GMT -5
I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm. There's a difference between buying something for less money and forgoting buying something in order to save money. Buying something for less money is essentially always good, because you have that thing and more money. But not buying a thing in order to save money is not good if you need that thing more than you need that extra money. Extremely broad analogy: if I have $15,000 budgeted for a roof and I end up able to get it for $12,500 that's good because I have a roof and I have $2,500. If I save $15,000 that I have budgeted for a roof and then I just don't buy a roof I have $15,000 but also a big problem when it's raining out. Saving $10 million on Mookie Betts and still having Mookie Betts is, from a team's standpoint, better than paying full price. Not having a starting pitcher because you chose to use that money on just having more money instead of having a starting pitcher is gonna get leaky. I have zero problem with spending money on starting pitching. I just think they spent it on the wrong guy. I'm not saying Sale is a bum. My concerns are he does not pitch deep into games and wears down over the course of a season.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 6, 2019 12:38:16 GMT -5
You're right. There was no fist pounding. Some question marks/ concerns, but no one was ANGRY or immediately calling it an albatross right off the announcement. It's also very possible he wins the Cy Young this year and earns his contract. It's just a bad look and they could have saved money. With that said, that's the job of the president/GM to identify the right guys to lock up. I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on Sale. I think they should have waited, but I think the reason both sides agreed to a contract is that they wanted Sale to take the early season easy and for a guy heading into free agency I don't know how you'd agree to that. I think the extension was to get him to agree to the plan. Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!" A boat, or like... a Mookie Betts extension. Because for all the wailing about how bad a Mookie Betts contract might be, I'd bet $300m on that guy before I'd bet $150m on ANY pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2019 12:48:16 GMT -5
There's a difference between buying something for less money and forgoting buying something in order to save money. Buying something for less money is essentially always good, because you have that thing and more money. But not buying a thing in order to save money is not good if you need that thing more than you need that extra money. Extremely broad analogy: if I have $15,000 budgeted for a roof and I end up able to get it for $12,500 that's good because I have a roof and I have $2,500. If I save $15,000 that I have budgeted for a roof and then I just don't buy a roof I have $15,000 but also a big problem when it's raining out. Saving $10 million on Mookie Betts and still having Mookie Betts is, from a team's standpoint, better than paying full price. Not having a starting pitcher because you chose to use that money on just having more money instead of having a starting pitcher is gonna get leaky. I have zero problem with spending money on starting pitching. I just think they spent it on the wrong guy. I'm not saying Sale is a bum. My concerns are he does not pitch deep into games and wears down over the course of a season. Coming into 2019 I'd say your first statement about Sale is false. I believe he was very capable of going deep into games and did so. Your statement about him wearing down is true.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 12:52:34 GMT -5
Saved money for what? This reminds me of the Family Guy mystery box scene. "Well a boat is great, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!" A boat, or like... a Mookie Betts extension. Because for all the wailing about how bad a Mookie Betts contract might be, I'd bet $300m on that guy before I'd bet $150m on ANY pitcher. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 13:13:02 GMT -5
I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm. Sounds great in theory. Let's say they saved 8 million dollars to spend on a reliever this past offseason. That could've netted us Cody Allen. Would've been pretty good at the time, he was coming off a down year but he had a good track record prior to that so maybe he reverts to form, right? Cody Allen has a 6.26 ERA and a -0.2 WAR this year. Point is, you can theorize about winning on the margins but it's so, so hard to do. Betting on superstars is almost always the right move. Again, it's all relative. I think Porcello is coming off the books so 20 million + an additional 5 could net them another star player. It's just better to have the resources than to not. It's not exclusively 5 million saved in Sale means they're going to immediately use on a reliever. It's also AAV so that's 5 for each of the next 5 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 13:17:00 GMT -5
I did like that scene, but more money is always a good thing. If you can save 5 from Sale, 5 from Mookie, 10 from Xander, 3 from whomever it all adds up. At the very least 5 million could net you a good bullpen arm. There's a difference between buying something for less money and forgoing buying something in order to save money. Buying something for less money is essentially always good, because you have that thing and more money. But not buying a thing in order to save money is not good if you need that thing more than you need that extra money. Extremely broad analogy: if I have $15,000 budgeted for a roof and I end up able to get it for $12,500 that's good because I have a roof and I have $2,500. If I save $15,000 that I have budgeted for a roof and then I just don't buy a roof I have $15,000 but also a big problem when it's raining out. Saving $10 million on Mookie Betts and still having Mookie Betts is, from a team's standpoint, better than paying full price. Not having a starting pitcher because you chose to use that money on just having more money instead of having a starting pitcher is gonna get leaky. I agree with the sentiment. At the end of the day I want Sale instead of no Sale. It's just the value and team building standpoint that they hurt themselves on his contract. They locked him up instead of gambling, but the value didn't feel far off than what he might have netted in free agency projecting his 2017 and 2018 seasons for 2019.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 13:43:53 GMT -5
There's a difference between buying something for less money and forgoing buying something in order to save money. Buying something for less money is essentially always good, because you have that thing and more money. But not buying a thing in order to save money is not good if you need that thing more than you need that extra money. Extremely broad analogy: if I have $15,000 budgeted for a roof and I end up able to get it for $12,500 that's good because I have a roof and I have $2,500. If I save $15,000 that I have budgeted for a roof and then I just don't buy a roof I have $15,000 but also a big problem when it's raining out. Saving $10 million on Mookie Betts and still having Mookie Betts is, from a team's standpoint, better than paying full price. Not having a starting pitcher because you chose to use that money on just having more money instead of having a starting pitcher is gonna get leaky. I agree with the sentiment. At the end of the day I want Sale instead of no Sale. It's just the value and team building standpoint that they hurt themselves on his contract. They locked him up instead of gambling, but the value didn't feel far off than what he might have netted in free agency projecting his 2017 and 2018 seasons for 2019. They won a World Series. What other "team building" standpoint is there?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 13:57:36 GMT -5
I agree with the sentiment. At the end of the day I want Sale instead of no Sale. It's just the value and team building standpoint that they hurt themselves on his contract. They locked him up instead of gambling, but the value didn't feel far off than what he might have netted in free agency projecting his 2017 and 2018 seasons for 2019. They won a World Series. What other "team building" standpoint is there? They won the World Series after they gave Chris Sale an extension?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Aug 6, 2019 14:28:33 GMT -5
I agree with the sentiment. At the end of the day I want Sale instead of no Sale. It's just the value and team building standpoint that they hurt themselves on his contract. They locked him up instead of gambling, but the value didn't feel far off than what he might have netted in free agency projecting his 2017 and 2018 seasons for 2019. They won a World Series. What other "team building" standpoint is there? Wow. You nailed it. Sale, Price, Porcello at about $65M won a WS. A relative bargain in the scheme of things because it took five years of heavy spending ($$ and prospects) following 2013 to win again. WS are the rarest experiences in baseball. With some of the reservations expressed above, I am fine with those contracts, and look for regression to their norms (Sale, Price) going forward. They are struggling but don’t seem to be done yet. Meanwhile, for the 2018 WS alone, those contracts are well worth it. Importantly, that heavy spending was made possible because from 2014 to 2018 the Sox had relatively low costs elsewhere, because the prospects NOT traded developed well. Barnes, Beni, Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Brockstar, Devers, ERod, Vasquez, Workman, etc. But this paradigm is changing fast. Following 2018, “the kids” are really starting to cost. And the cap will not permit a roster of 25 highly paid players. So the emergence of prospects like Chavis, Dalbec, Duran, Darwinzon, Feltman, Houck, Mata, Ockimey, Shawaryn, etc. are essential solutions to remaining both competitive and financially viable. IMO, the window is not closing, it’s just a weird season. The very talented Sox will be a force in the coming years and it is more likely than not that the near $60M to glean results from Price and Sale could/should/will be well spent. All that said, it’s baseball, so being more definitive than could/would/should is just silly.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 14:32:51 GMT -5
They won a World Series. What other "team building" standpoint is there? They won the World Series after they gave Chris Sale an extension? No, but the team that they built in large part around Sale won a World Series. So if Sale was such a huge factor in winning that World Series, it stands to reason that it is good value from a team building standpoint to keep him. You can make the argument that it would've been good to cut costs by saving a little on certain players here and there, that is obvious, but it's also not realistic. Having a player of Chris Sale's caliber on the roster > not having that player. Generally, you do what it takes to get that player on your roster. And your other point is not great, he would've gotten more on the open market than he did to extend with Boston. Bottom line is, the goal is to open your window for at the very least one year to win the World Series. And the Red Sox did that, and it was awesome. But generally that window closes fast and closes hard. For Pete's sake, the 2015 World Series was between the Mets and the Royals! Sometimes you get teams like the Dodgers who keep it together at an elite level for a few years, but they also haven't won the series with this iteration of the club. And then very, very rarely do you get a team like the Astros who just put together absolute juggernaut teams through brilliant front office maneuvering over a long period of time. It's really important to remember that these Astros teams are the exception and not the rule. AND it took years of being terrible to build the framework for these teams, and I don't think anyone here wants three straight sub-60 win seasons. While I would love to have the Red Sox be able to do what the Astros have done, it's a tough, tough ask. They replicated it as best they could. They put together an all-time team and had a chance to run it back with roughly the same squad. You take that chance 10 times out of 10, and that includes doing whatever it takes to get Sale in the fold.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 15:39:42 GMT -5
They won the World Series after they gave Chris Sale an extension? No, but the team that they built in large part around Sale won a World Series. So if Sale was such a huge factor in winning that World Series, it stands to reason that it is good value from a team building standpoint to keep him. You can make the argument that it would've been good to cut costs by saving a little on certain players here and there, that is obvious, but it's also not realistic. Having a player of Chris Sale's caliber on the roster > not having that player. Generally, you do what it takes to get that player on your roster. And your other point is not great, he would've gotten more on the open market than he did to extend with Boston. Bottom line is, the goal is to open your window for at the very least one year to win the World Series. And the Red Sox did that, and it was awesome. But generally that window closes fast and closes hard. For Pete's sake, the 2015 World Series was between the Mets and the Royals! Sometimes you get teams like the Dodgers who keep it together at an elite level for a few years, but they also haven't won the series with this iteration of the club. And then very, very rarely do you get a team like the Astros who just put together absolute juggernaut teams through brilliant front office maneuvering over a long period of time. It's really important to remember that these Astros teams are the exception and not the rule. AND it took years of being terrible to build the framework for these teams, and I don't think anyone here wants three straight sub-60 win seasons. While I would love to have the Red Sox be able to do what the Astros have done, it's a tough, tough ask. They replicated it as best they could. They put together an all-time team and had a chance to run it back with roughly the same squad. You take that chance 10 times out of 10, and that includes doing whatever it takes to get Sale in the fold. Never said they shouldn't have tried to retain him. The point is they would have saved millions on a per year basis if they waited till the off-season. It was a worthwhile gamble since I believe his AAV is currently at market. He has a career record of fading late in the year and last season he broke down. He has a small and frail body. I would prefer they wait till the contract expired to see what they had. Again, he's getting 30 AAV. What do you think Chris Sale replicating his 2018 at age 31 is going to be worth? David Price is making 32 per and he was phenomenal going into that deal. He had a 2.45 ERA in 32 starts and was turning 30. To get him, the Red Sox blew out the Cardinals by at least $30 million. I honestly don't see how Sale was getting that much more than he did when the market cost of SP has been going down. Chris Sale was worth every bit of that trade. It doesn't mean his extension is worth it. Since it hasn't technically stated it's to be seen, but this year isn't inspiring confidence and his likely value would have decreased had the contract come in December instead of before the season started.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 6, 2019 15:56:02 GMT -5
No, but the team that they built in large part around Sale won a World Series. So if Sale was such a huge factor in winning that World Series, it stands to reason that it is good value from a team building standpoint to keep him. You can make the argument that it would've been good to cut costs by saving a little on certain players here and there, that is obvious, but it's also not realistic. Having a player of Chris Sale's caliber on the roster > not having that player. Generally, you do what it takes to get that player on your roster. And your other point is not great, he would've gotten more on the open market than he did to extend with Boston. Bottom line is, the goal is to open your window for at the very least one year to win the World Series. And the Red Sox did that, and it was awesome. But generally that window closes fast and closes hard. For Pete's sake, the 2015 World Series was between the Mets and the Royals! Sometimes you get teams like the Dodgers who keep it together at an elite level for a few years, but they also haven't won the series with this iteration of the club. And then very, very rarely do you get a team like the Astros who just put together absolute juggernaut teams through brilliant front office maneuvering over a long period of time. It's really important to remember that these Astros teams are the exception and not the rule. AND it took years of being terrible to build the framework for these teams, and I don't think anyone here wants three straight sub-60 win seasons. While I would love to have the Red Sox be able to do what the Astros have done, it's a tough, tough ask. They replicated it as best they could. They put together an all-time team and had a chance to run it back with roughly the same squad. You take that chance 10 times out of 10, and that includes doing whatever it takes to get Sale in the fold. Never said they shouldn't have tried to retain him. The point is they would have saved millions on a per year basis if they waited till the off-season. It was a worthwhile gamble since I believe his AAV is currently at market. He has a career record of fading late in the year and last season he broke down. He has a small and frail body. I would prefer they wait till the contract expired to see what they had. Again, he's getting 30 AAV. What do you think Chris Sale replicating his 2018 at age 31 is going to be worth? David Price is making 32 per and he was phenomenal going into that deal. He had a 2.45 ERA in 32 starts and was turning 30. To get him, the Red Sox blew out the Cardinals by at least $30 million. I honestly don't see how Sale was getting that much more than he did when the market cost of SP has been going down. Chris Sale was worth every bit of that trade. It doesn't mean his extension is worth it. Since it hasn't technically stated it's to be seen, but this year isn't inspiring confidence and his likely value would have decreased had the contract come in December instead of before the season started. Do you think the Red Sox just randomly threw a ton of money at Sale not having an idea of what his market value would be if he hit free agency? It makes absolutely no sense at all to assume that he would have been cheaper if he would have waited. For one, if it would have been cheaper then they would have waited since they obviously would have been motivated to save money. Second, there is no precedent, ever, for extensions being pricier than the free market. Not only is there no precedent but it goes against basic economic principles. If one of your main reasons for not liking the deal is that you think he would have been cheaper in free agency then you're just not correct.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 16:22:01 GMT -5
Never said they shouldn't have tried to retain him. The point is they would have saved millions on a per year basis if they waited till the off-season. It was a worthwhile gamble since I believe his AAV is currently at market. He has a career record of fading late in the year and last season he broke down. He has a small and frail body. I would prefer they wait till the contract expired to see what they had. Again, he's getting 30 AAV. What do you think Chris Sale replicating his 2018 at age 31 is going to be worth? David Price is making 32 per and he was phenomenal going into that deal. He had a 2.45 ERA in 32 starts and was turning 30. To get him, the Red Sox blew out the Cardinals by at least $30 million. I honestly don't see how Sale was getting that much more than he did when the market cost of SP has been going down. Chris Sale was worth every bit of that trade. It doesn't mean his extension is worth it. Since it hasn't technically stated it's to be seen, but this year isn't inspiring confidence and his likely value would have decreased had the contract come in December instead of before the season started. Do you think the Red Sox just randomly threw a ton of money at Sale not having an idea of what his market value would be if he hit free agency? It makes absolutely no sense at all to assume that he would have been cheaper if he would have waited. For one, if it would have been cheaper then they would have waited since they obviously would have been motivated to save money. Second, there is no precedent, ever, for extensions being pricier than the free market. Not only is there no precedent but it goes against basic economic principles. If one of your main reasons for not liking the deal is that you think he would have been cheaper in free agency then you're just not correct. It wouldn't be the first time they overvalued a player, though my suspicion was they potentially saved on a good year by Sale, but not at a significant number which is why I preferred the wait and see approach. I also believe the two sides agreed to an agreement to convince Sale to get onboard with the ramp up approach. They would be asking a free agent to be to tank the first couple of months of the season so that he could be stronger in September/October, which by the way, if they're already trying to baby his workload and manage him and they haven't even gotten to the extension yet that kind of goes back to me thinking he doesn't get much more than he did in free agency.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2019 16:50:00 GMT -5
So, let me see if I can summarize the "retain Chris Sale at a lesser cost after the season" argument. - First, correctly predict that Chris Sale, who had been top 5 in Cy Young voting for the last 6 consecutive years, was going to have the single worst season of his career. - Second, manage not to alienate Chris Sale (the man who went serial killer on his entire team's jerseys because he didn't like how his own jersey looked/fit) by ignoring his public interest in an extension. - Third, have 29 other teams so repulsed by his 2019 performance that they forget he's Chris Sale. - Fourth, expect the Red Sox to be the only team in baseball undeterred in their pursuit of Sale despite his terrible season because they have the divine clairvoyance to know that he's going to be vintage Sale for the next 5 years. - Fifth, give him a Porcello deal adjusted for inflation. Call it 4-5 years at $22-24 AAV. Save almost nothing. If you still want Sale, but just cheaper, then you're expecting the Sox to accurately predict his demise to the exact year and then be the only team in baseball to anticipate his immediate resurgence. To me that seems a little unreasonable, especially considering that the only things on his stat line that look really bad are his ERA and his W-L record. As far as the other opinions expressed: If you think Sale is done then fine, I don't agree but I'll respect your opinion. If you don't like aces and the contracts that come with them, I refer you to the magic that was the 2015 "he's the ace" season. If you'd prefer a different ace I'll remind you that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. All of it requires either the ability to perfectly see the future or a time machine.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2019 17:07:24 GMT -5
So, let me see if I can summarize the "retain Chris Sale at a lesser cost after the season" argument. - First, correctly predict that Chris Sale, who had been top 5 in Cy Young voting for the last 6 consecutive years, was going to have the single worst season of his career. - Second, manage not to alienate Chris Sale (the man who went serial killer on his entire team's jerseys because he didn't like how his own jersey looked/fit) by ignoring his public interest in an extension. - Third, have 29 other teams so repulsed by his 2019 performance that they forget he's Chris Sale. - Fourth, expect the Red Sox to be the only team in baseball undeterred in their pursuit of Sale despite his terrible season because they have the divine clairvoyance to know that he's going to be vintage Sale for the next 5 years. - Fifth, give him a Porcello deal adjusted for inflation. Call it 4-5 years at $22-24 AAV. Save almost nothing. If you still want Sale, but just cheaper, then you're expecting the Sox to accurately predict his demise to the exact year and then be the only team in baseball to anticipate his immediate resurgence. To me that seems a little unreasonable, especially considering that the only things on his stat line that look really bad are his ERA and his W-L record. As far as the other opinions expressed: If you think Sale is done then fine, I don't agree but I'll respect your opinion. If you don't like aces and the contracts that come with them, I refer you to the magic that was the 2015 "he's the ace" season. If you'd prefer a different ace I'll remind you that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. - First, realize he'll be 31 at the start of his new deal and you're paying for him into his age 36. - Second, predict that his thin body comes with risks of durability. - Third, recognize that he broke down with shoulder issues and struggled to get back to the mound in August/September and made it back for October with diminished command and velocity. - Fourth, look at his career and his history of fading in September/October. Then mix that with you came into the 2019 season asking Chris Sale to throw softer and manage his workload when he hasn't even entered his extension years yet. - Fifth, his velocity is down this year and his command is spotty. There's now concerns with how efficient he can be with the juiced balls. - Sixth, what's Chris Sale going to do that's not going to harm his free agent value? He could be upset, but doing anything retaliatory would cost him dollars. Here's an article from 2014 about pitchers and their average decline over the age of 30: www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/25/5437902/pitching-aging-curves Again, what makes anyone think Chris Sale would command more than what David Price got in free agency when the market is coming down on starting pitchers? David Price says opt-in with Red Sox was easy decision: 'Have you seen this free agent market?'Even Evan Longoria had something to say27 year old Machado got 30 AAV over 10 years. 26 year old Harper got 26 AAV over 13 years. Yu Darvish might be a good comp. He was excellent since coming to the states and was a highly touted signing. His "down year" (3.41 ERA) 2 years before signing his mega-deal had a FIP of 3.09. Still pretty good. He had a slight regression year with a 3.86 ERA and a FIP of 3.83. He got 6/126. He made 25 last year, 20 this year, then 22 the following 2 then 19 then 18. So, I don't see why Chris Sale would break much higher than the 30 million per.
|
|
|