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.
Chris Sale Undergoing Tommy John (3/19)
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 20, 2020 15:11:41 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it.
It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 20, 2020 15:41:57 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it. It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem. I didn't see the value of the signing at the time. An early extension might have saved them 4-5 million per year or perhaps an extra year or two if he had an elite season in which he was fully healthy. Considering his trend of wearing down by the end of the season and laboring to pitch in October 2018 I thought it would be best to take the odds and see where his value ends up. Literally anyone can have Tommy John, I get that, but his wiry frame also screams Tim Lincecum. Hopefully with no baseball in 2020, he's able to come back by mid-season next year and resume being Chris Sale. Missing a few months and getting back to what he was can return the value of the contract. He's in an unique position where his contract should be a net negative, but because of this virus, he's not until they play baseball again.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 20, 2020 16:17:17 GMT -5
Maybe it was best that we traded Mookie. Team would be crap if they play this year. "A Mookie Betts contract extension is too risky!" they said. "Too many years"!, they said. Yeah, great. Please explain to me again how Mookie's salary in 2032 or whatever is such a horrifying liability to so many of you but the Sale contract was totally reasonable a year out of FA and coming off an arm injury. I would like to revisit that argument now.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 20, 2020 16:29:09 GMT -5
Maybe it was best that we traded Mookie. Team would be crap if they play this year. "A Mookie Betts contract extension is too risky!" they said. "Too many years"!, they said. Yeah, great. Please explain to me again how Mookie's salary in 2032 or whatever is such a horrifying liability to so many of you but the Sale contract was totally reasonable a year out of FA and coming off an arm injury. I would like to revisit that argument now. It's a "pending" argument. For right now, Mookie Betts was considered an auction item at the end of the season, regardless to where he played. Now, either the Red Sox appear to be a horrible team in 2020 or baseball isn't even played. Either scenario, you're not getting value out of him in a lost year and you may have just gotten Downs and Verdugo for free. Either way, with Sale done for the year, this was not a contending team even with Betts and Price. Now it just looks completely awful. Edit: After re-reading this I think we're in partial agreement. I just call it a completed argument until Mookie gets a longer-term deal, which admittedly doesn't appear to be great for him to come back. I do wonder if 2019 is more "true Betts" than 2018. Which is still a great player, but is that worth $420 million?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 20, 2020 18:15:41 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it. It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem. but he wasn't just worth it, he provided a major surplus. that surplus allowed them to finance other portions of their club and negate under performing assets. I acknowledge the risk on the extension (and the subsequent cost to not having him available), but that surplus will hopefully make his entire tenure with the club more palatable from a salary point of view
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 20, 2020 18:17:48 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it. It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem. It's always the case, when a team re-signs a guy who is hitting free agency for the first time, that they are way ahead financially.
Or to use a similar logic: your first ten years with your partner are great, but you drift apart and now don't get along at all. Hey, you could stay a couple for another joyless fifteen years and still come out ahead!
I know that the first time I looked at the Sox getting under the tax limit for 2020 here, I assumed Sale was a goner. I was completely shocked by the decision to extend him.
I put this one on DDo, and not just the extension. When they traded for him, he and his analytic team seemed to be unaware of the career pattern I talked about in the "This Sale Valid for a Limited Time Only?" thread. They paid a crazy price for a guy who had consistently been an ordinary pitcher in the last months of the season, one that only made sense if you had a plan to keep him fresh and ace-like for October, which of course would double as a plan to keep him healthy.
But they did nothing to address the problem of him wearing down every year, and it's not surprising that this fatigue problem escalated into injury.
It's easy to say that the trade was worth it because they won a WS with him on the mound, but you can subtract his WAR and they still win the division, plus you get a game or two from the Moncada vs. Nunez upgrade at 2B. Nor does it seem likely that subtracting his 15.1 IP with a 4.11 ERA from the postseason would have cost them the WS, assuming of course that they had an extra arm for his roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 20, 2020 18:18:51 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it. It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem. but he wasn't just worth it, he provided a major surplus. that surplus allowed them to finance other portions of their club and negate under performing assets. I acknowledge the risk on the extension, but that surplus will hopefully make his entire tenure with the club more palatable from a salary point of view That contract might have now cost you Mookie Betts. If Sale pitched like Sale for most of his contract, then he is absolutely worth the value, but he hasn't been and there were red flags before signing the ink. The board was torn the moment he signed it which shows it wasn't an absolute slam dunk that just didn't work out (like the Pedroia deal).
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 20, 2020 18:25:37 GMT -5
The fact that Sale was worth his last contract didn't make him worth this one. This one started this year and he is going to provide next to no value for the first 30-40% of it. It's not fair to task the Red Sox with predicting he'd need Tommy John, but by signing him to the extension when they did, they cost themselves about $30M by my estimation versus what he probably would've cost on the open market this offseason. That's the problem. It's always the case, when a team re-signs a guy who is hitting free agency for the first time, that they are way ahead financially.
Or to use a similar logic: your first ten years with your partner are great, but you drift apart and now don't get along at all. Hey, you could stay a couple for another joyless fifteen years and still come out ahead!
I know that the first time I looked at the Sox getting under the tax limit for 2020 here, I assumed Sale was a goner. I was completely shocked by the decision to extend him.
I put this one on DDo, and not just the extension. When they traded for him, he and his analytic team seemed to be unaware of the career pattern I talked about in the "This Sale Valid for a Limited Time Only?" thread. They paid a crazy price for a guy who had consistently been an ordinary pitcher in the last months of the season, one that only made sense if you had a plan to keep him fresh and ace-like for October, which of course would double as a plan to keep him healthy.
But they did nothing to address the problem of him wearing down every year, and it's not surprising that this fatigue problem escalated into injury.
It's easy to say that the trade was worth it because they won a WS with him on the mound, but you can subtract his WAR and they still win the division, plus you get a game or two from the Moncada vs. Nunez upgrade at 2B. Nor does it seem likely that subtracting his 15.1 IP with a 4.11 ERA from the postseason would have cost them the WS, assuming of course that they had an extra arm for his roster spot.
I am sorry, this might be all well and good, but it isn't just the measurables. There is no legitimate argument to not making the trade. He fit right into the #1 role, thereby extending a great rotation. Not too mention, the Sox were just as capable of winning it in 2017, but we now know why that may have been hindered. Arguing against the extension is one thing, revisiting the value of the trade is totally different
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 20, 2020 18:33:11 GMT -5
but he wasn't just worth it, he provided a major surplus. that surplus allowed them to finance other portions of their club and negate under perfortming assets. I acknowledge the risk on the extension, but that surplus will hopefully make his entire tenure with the club more palatable from a salary point of view That contract might have now cost you Mookie Betts. If Sale pitched like Sale for most of his contract, then he is absolutely worth the value, but he hasn't been and there were red flags before signing the ink. The board was torn the moment he signed it which shows it wasn't an absolute slam dunk that just didn't work out (like the Pedroia deal). I don't think you can make that assumption with Mookie, who was on the record for years about testing FA. The Sox should not run into that problem next year. And if he pitched like Sale for the next 5 years he, again, would be providing major surplus. It is OK to not like the extension, I was OK with it. I think that is in part, against apparent modern baseball orthodoxy, you can overpay and take risks on certain players. Pitchers are different, for sure, and it could turn out to be ugly. But if anyone was worth it, it was Sale.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 20, 2020 18:46:04 GMT -5
That contract might have now cost you Mookie Betts. If Sale pitched like Sale for most of his contract, then he is absolutely worth the value, but he hasn't been and there were red flags before signing the ink. The board was torn the moment he signed it which shows it wasn't an absolute slam dunk that just didn't work out (like the Pedroia deal). I don't think you can make that assumption with Mookie, who was on the record for years about testing FA. The Sox should not run into that problem next year. And if he pitched like Sale for the next 5 years he, again, would be providing major surplus. It is OK to not like the extension, I was OK with it. I think that is in part, against apparent modern baseball orthodoxy, you can overpay and take risks on certain players. Pitchers are different, for sure, and it could turn out to be ugly. But if anyone was worth it, it was Sale. I mean, it's fair because without Sale, they were likely going to pay someone else, so that could have been 20 million instead of 30 million so only a 10 million difference. Still, if you had an extra 30 million to go to war with your odds of retaining went up. But I disagree that Sale was worth it. He literally broke down the year before and had a history of doing so. This wasn't a new development and his body frame doesn't tend to bold well for him. He'll also need to learn how to be more of a pitcher if his velocity declines which isn't very easy to do.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 20, 2020 19:34:57 GMT -5
That contract might have now cost you Mookie Betts. If Sale pitched like Sale for most of his contract, then he is absolutely worth the value, but he hasn't been and there were red flags before signing the ink. The board was torn the moment he signed it which shows it wasn't an absolute slam dunk that just didn't work out (like the Pedroia deal). I don't think you can make that assumption with Mookie, who was on the record for years about testing FA. The Sox should not run into that problem next year. And if he pitched like Sale for the next 5 years he, again, would be providing major surplus. It is OK to not like the extension, I was OK with it. I think that is in part, against apparent modern baseball orthodoxy, you can overpay and take risks on certain players. Pitchers are different, for sure, and it could turn out to be ugly. But if anyone was worth it, it was Sale.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 21, 2020 6:35:44 GMT -5
By the logic that past performance justifies current contract, the Red Sox could give Yaz 8/$200M today and still come out ahead.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 21, 2020 7:42:39 GMT -5
By the logic that past performance justifies current contract, the Red Sox could give Yaz, 8/$200M today and still come out ahead. Past performance determines free agent contracts (pay premiums, if there is a market). That isn't news. They extended him 1 year before that was to be the case, knowing that his health history made it risky. People are conflating my opinion that it was a risk worth taking to the success of the extension (and the current bad situation of the extension status). Add: I think it is a silly notion that players don't get paid on past performance. What vocation doesn't ? Do people think businesses hand out raises because it makes them feel good? If you are very good at something, would you not want to negotiate with your employer the best salary you could get? And wouldn't your employer make the decision after careful consideration ?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 21, 2020 8:00:50 GMT -5
By the logic that past performance justifies current contract, the Red Sox could give Yaz, 8/$200M today and still come out ahead. Well.......with the juiced ball??
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 21, 2020 8:26:43 GMT -5
By the logic that past performance justifies current contract, the Red Sox could give Yaz, 8/$200M today and still come out ahead. Past performance determines free agent contracts (pay premiums, if there is a market). That isn't news. They extended him 1 year before that was to be the case, knowing that his health history made it risky. People are conflating my opinion that it was a risk worth taking to the success of the extension (and the current bad situation of the extension status). Add: I think it is a silly notion that players don't get paid on past performance. What vocation doesn't ? Do people think businesses hand out raises because it makes them feel good? If you are very good at something, would you not want to negotiate with your employer the best salary you could get? And wouldn't your employer make the decision after careful consideration ? They get paid on how past performance informs future performance, not on past performance alone - that's why guys who break out late in their career like David Ortiz and Nelson Cruz don't get paid like guys who put up lesser numbers in their 20s. I didn't have a problem with the Sale contract in a vacuum - I actually thought the risk was reasonable. If you asked someone before 2019 whether they'd want that Sale extension or the deal Gerrit Cole got after the year, everyone would've picked Sale. But you can't argue that the excess value from before the contract should count toward the next contract. That's the mentality that failed Ruben Amaro in Philadelphia as he kept the 2008 core together for too long and too much money. That's the issue with the Sale deal: Paired with the Eovaldi overpay and how much money they were giving Price, there was too much long-term money in high-risk arms in the rotation, and not enough money set aside to put in a Brinks Truck for Mookie Betts. I'm also not going to write the obituary on Sale's career. He was very effective in 2019 when he pitched, and the comeback rates from TJ are high. The fact that doctor's couldn't agree that he needed TJ is a concern, and that there might be another underlying issue that TJ won't fix. But there's also a chance that Sale comes back and is very good again.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 21, 2020 11:10:26 GMT -5
i agree excess value should not count towards any extension, in theory, that value would show up in the players market value. I was just trying to make the point as it related to WAR.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 21, 2020 11:26:17 GMT -5
Past performance determines free agent contracts (pay premiums, if there is a market). That isn't news. They extended him 1 year before that was to be the case, knowing that his health history made it risky. People are conflating my opinion that it was a risk worth taking to the success of the extension (and the current bad situation of the extension status). Add: I think it is a silly notion that players don't get paid on past performance. What vocation doesn't ? Do people think businesses hand out raises because it makes them feel good? If you are very good at something, would you not want to negotiate with your employer the best salary you could get? And wouldn't your employer make the decision after careful consideration ? They get paid on how past performance informs future performance, not on past performance alone - that's why guys who break out late in their career like David Ortiz and Nelson Cruz don't get paid like guys who put up lesser numbers in their 20s. I didn't have a problem with the Sale contract in a vacuum - I actually thought the risk was reasonable. If you asked someone before 2019 whether they'd want that Sale extension or the deal Gerrit Cole got after the year, everyone would've picked Sale. But you can't argue that the excess value from before the contract should count toward the next contract. That's the mentality that failed Ruben Amaro in Philadelphia as he kept the 2008 core together for too long and too much money. That's the issue with the Sale deal: Paired with the Eovaldi overpay and how much money they were giving Price, there was too much long-term money in high-risk arms in the rotation, and not enough money set aside to put in a Brinks Truck for Mookie Betts. I'm also not going to write the obituary on Sale's career. He was very effective in 2019 when he pitched, and the comeback rates from TJ are high. The fact that doctor's couldn't agree that he needed TJ is a concern, and that there might be another underlying issue that TJ won't fix. But there's also a chance that Sale comes back and is very good again. I actually suggested riding out Sale's contract and sign Corbin.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 21, 2020 12:55:35 GMT -5
I don't think that the Sale extension cost them Betts. Betts was its own issue regarding the risk of letting him walk in FA versus value available now.
The Sale extension likely DID cost them David Price, whose inclusion in the Betts trade may not have been necessary otherwise.
There are two different points here - 1) the fact they extended Sale at all, and 2) the price they extended him for.
I don't have too big of a problem with extending Sale. What I have a problem with is that they extended him for market value. If you're just going to pay him market value, let him go to free agency! Compare that with what the Brewers just did with Yelich, locking him up for WAY below market value. THAT is how extensions work for teams. You don't extend a guy for his best case market value, which is basically what they did.
And again, the fact that he outpitched his previous contract is irrelevant to the next contract he got. Just because Sale had been a 5-6 WAR pitcher previously, you don't extend him at that price. You sign him as a free agent at that price. If he wants to get the financial security of an extension, he takes less. That's how this works. He doesn't get the benefit of the fact that he outperformed his previous contract.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Mar 27, 2020 17:28:06 GMT -5
I hear Thor has had his TJ surgery. Any word/ news of Sale’s status??
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 28, 2020 3:19:43 GMT -5
By the logic that past performance justifies current contract, the Red Sox could give Yaz 8/$200M today and still come out ahead. Yaz was making i believe it was 100k a year in 1975, way past his prime and for what he had previously done and for what he, as a player meant to Tom Yawkey. That post of urs was just being officious. I get about half the crowd here is now anti Sale extension and wanted betts signed regardless of how much and how many years, but it's gone past petty grievances and now crossed into territory where a once superstar player was being overpaid by an owner for (then) current performance.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 28, 2020 15:19:54 GMT -5
Accoding to B-Ref, No. 8 was making $175,000 in 1975. I knew the $100K wasn't right because I recall that in my early days as a RS fan - the early '70s - he made ~$165,000/year and I thought it was amazing that he made more than $1K per game. I can remember telling people "He makes more than $100 an inning!Even if nobody hits a ball to him, he gets more than $100 just for standing there for five minutes!"
FWIW, the Sale contract never made sense to me. When he got it, he was coming off a season in which he missed considerable time and his velo was noticeably down during the 2018 PS run. He was a rail-thin guy with a herky-jerky motion and 1,500 innings on his arm. His inability to make it through 2019 and TJ surgery were not surrpises.
But even if we weren't burdened by the Sale contact, trading Mookie would still have been the right move. He wasn't coming back here without a massive overpay.
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Mar 30, 2020 17:19:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 30, 2020 18:22:51 GMT -5
I read that as, "unsuccessful" at first. Given how his health has gone since signing the contract, this wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 30, 2020 21:22:30 GMT -5
I read that as, "unsuccessful" at first. Given has his health has gone since signing the contract, this wouldn't surprise me. Yeah, "underwent successful" got me at first too lol.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Mar 31, 2020 3:52:06 GMT -5
Successful and in a specialty clinic (and by a specialist physician) unlikely to deal with covid19, in a procedure that does not use N95 masks or ventilators and got surgical gear from their relatively tiny supply closet. This procedure was done before it got worse and hopefully salvaged a career. Can CHB and SI stop the gossip now???
|
|
|