|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 29, 2015 2:40:09 GMT -5
Factor in whatever you want to factor in, so long as it relates to one of the free agent starting pitchers still available this off-season (whether that be Price, Greinke or Cueto). To put the results in perspective, consider that in the entire history of the Red Sox, the cumulative salary ever paid by the team to any one pitcher, starter or otherwise, has never before exceeded $100 million.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 3:36:01 GMT -5
Anything south of 225 for Price over 7 years is gravy in my book. Or under 165 for Greinke over 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 29, 2015 4:26:54 GMT -5
Price 7 /235
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 29, 2015 6:43:57 GMT -5
This would be a better poll if you struck "a single FA starting pitcher" and replaced it with "David Price" and then tightened up the salary ranges.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Nov 29, 2015 10:14:55 GMT -5
I think five years/$105M would be about right.
But seriously, I don't think Price gets as much as some are saying. I'll put him at about $200 million for seven years - $28.5M per year. That'll be more than enough to inspire a "How do we get rid of Price?" thread probably within three years, four at the most.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Nov 29, 2015 11:19:48 GMT -5
The Red Sox have about $49 million in operating income (earnings before interest and taxes), and these earning go to enrich the owners at the expense of the fans.
The Red Sox institution belongs to the fans, and the owners should operate it as a public service without enriching themselves. I'd like to see all operating income be re-allocated to baseball expenses. By this measure, if David Price makes 250m over 7 years, that clearly is NOT too much, and still leaves at least another 93m for further expenses, even assuming that revenue stays flat, rather than doubling as it has in the last seven years.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,833
|
Post by wcp3 on Nov 29, 2015 11:53:38 GMT -5
There are always exceptions, but I'm pretty much against signing FA starting pitchers. The contracts have gotten so outta whack that it's nearly impossible to get fair...let alone good...value when you sign a FA starter. There's usually a reason the guy made it to free agency as opposed to signing a long-term extension - he knows he has one payday left - and you rarely hear of a quality 25-year-old being on the open market.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 11:56:12 GMT -5
There are always exceptions, but I'm pretty much against signing FA starting pitchers. The contracts have gotten so outta whack that it's nearly impossible to get fair...let alone good...value when you sign a FA starter. There's usually a reason the guy made it to free agency as opposed to signing a long-term extension - he knows he has one payday left - and you rarely hear of a quality 25-year-old being on the open market. A quality 25 year old doesn't hit the open market because the way rookie control works, he'd have to be a full time regular at like age 19.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,679
Member is Online
|
Post by gerry on Nov 29, 2015 12:14:05 GMT -5
The Red Sox have about $49 million in operating income (earnings before interest and taxes), and these earning go to enrich the owners at the expense of the fans. The Red Sox institution belongs to the fans, and the owners should operate it as a public service without enriching themselves. I'd like to see all operating income be re-allocated to baseball expenses. By this measure, if David Price makes 250m over 7 years, that clearly is NOT too much, and still leaves at least another 93m for further expenses, even assuming that revenue stays flat, rather than doubling as it has in the last seven years. Sarcasm font?
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Nov 29, 2015 12:45:38 GMT -5
Actually the entire premise for this thread in factually incorrect. Between his posting fee and contract (in which he failed to hit bonus tied incentives) the Sox spent over 103 million dollars to acquire Daisuke Matsuzaka. .
And the simple fact that baseball is generating much more in revenue today than it was 15-20 years ago or any other time in the sports history, should make using historical precedents for hard dollar amounts useless. It is akin to a Bernie Sanders supporter saying that taxes under his fantasy administration would be less than under Eisenhower without acknowledging that at that time we were still paying of the practical rebuilding of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 29, 2015 14:32:31 GMT -5
Between his posting fee and contract (in which he failed to hit bonus tied incentives) the Sox spent over 103 million dollars to acquire Daisuke Matsuzaka. Posting fees don't go to the player. So, in fact, the cumulative salary paid by the Red Sox to any one pitcher has never exceeded $100 million. Pedro, I believe, came the closest.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 29, 2015 15:33:42 GMT -5
There are always exceptions, but I'm pretty much against signing FA starting pitchers. The contracts have gotten so outta whack that it's nearly impossible to get fair...let alone good...value when you sign a FA starter. There's usually a reason the guy made it to free agency as opposed to signing a long-term extension - he knows he has one payday left - and you rarely hear of a quality 25-year-old being on the open market. Baseball free agent contracts and the whole contract system as a whole is just crazy. But, you have to look at your payroll/future payroll as a whole. Your never going to have 25(or in reality closer to 40) players that are all in arb or pre arb years, nor can you function with all players in there free agent years. It's managing a mix to fit within salary range for current and future years. It's a crazy system with crazy numbers but that is how it is. Is David Price better than Noah Syndagaurd?? Probably he was last year. Probably will be this year. Probably won't be going forward. And when u compare salaries, the two players value seem so distant, even though price is still probably the better pitcher today. The issue is that you just can't rely on the stars aligning and having a team of all pre arb superstars. It has never happened not will it. In fact, right now the Sox are set up pretty good with a lot of players, with similar service time, that could very well create a lot of wins. The problem is still that we do not have a TOR pitcher. 30-35M$/Y is way more than a team should be paying for David Price, but that is the cost. Go sign him and it is a guarantee that this team will be better off for it. The contract may become an issue later on but worry about that then. There are going to be no 25 year old studs avalible in FA and there is no guarantee you will bring one up threw you own system (when was the last time the Sox did. 1986???). Sign Price and meet Ya at Fort Myers.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 29, 2015 16:22:34 GMT -5
I had a nightmare last night that the Sox signed Price for 8/$240M. Woke up in a cold sweat with a knot in my stomach. Yes, this really happened. Apparently I know my limit. Something like 7/$210 in real money (not Scherzer Funny Money) is livable for me.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 29, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5
I had a nightmare last night that the Sox signed Price for 8/$240M. Woke up in a cold sweat with a knot in my stomach. Yes, this really happened. Apparently I know my limit. Something like 7/$210 in real money (not Scherzer Funny Money) is livable for me. There's not much difference between 7/210 and 8/240
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 29, 2015 19:25:44 GMT -5
I had a nightmare last night that the Sox signed Price for 8/$240M. Woke up in a cold sweat with a knot in my stomach. Yes, this really happened. Apparently I know my limit. Something like 7/$210 in real money (not Scherzer Funny Money) is livable for me. There's not much difference between 7/210 and 8/240 I think a 38 year old David Price at $30M is a fairly significant difference than having him go off the books after year 7. I don't think it's going to take 8 years at 30 per, in particular if the Dodgers already have Greinke locked up. There just aren't enough teams with enough $ and willing enough to go that much
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 29, 2015 19:39:36 GMT -5
If $30 million is team-breaking in 2023 something went terribly wrong either with the Red Sox or in baseball economics in general. And Price could be worth the $240 million in the first five years of a deal.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 29, 2015 19:44:00 GMT -5
If $30 million is team-breaking in 2023 something went terribly wrong either with the Red Sox or in baseball economics in general. And Price could be worth the $240 million in the first five years of a deal. I'm not saying I wouldn't make the deal at 8/240 and go hardline at 7/210. Just that 30M in a season for a 38 year old is probably going to be a lot pretty much regardless of baseball's economics
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 29, 2015 19:47:06 GMT -5
If $30 million is team-breaking in 2023 something went terribly wrong either with the Red Sox or in baseball economics in general. And Price could be worth the $240 million in the first five years of a deal. And who knows what 30M$ will be in 2021-2023 baseball dollars!!!!
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Nov 29, 2015 21:03:21 GMT -5
If $30 million is team-breaking in 2023 something went terribly wrong either with the Red Sox or in baseball economics in general. And Price could be worth the $240 million in the first five years of a deal. Completely agree, James. The money is hardly of consequence to the Red Sox, whose revenues have doubled in the last seven years or so, and who are only concerned with not breaking from the other teams in their monopoly to keep player salaries depressed. As ticket-buying fans, we should receive the best baseball product that our money can buy, not some profit-seeking diversion of money from the baseball product to the owners' pockets.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 30, 2015 4:39:17 GMT -5
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 30, 2015 8:28:12 GMT -5
If $30 million is team-breaking in 2023 something went terribly wrong either with the Red Sox or in baseball economics in general. And Price could be worth the $240 million in the first five years of a deal. Completely agree, James. The money is hardly of consequence to the Red Sox, whose revenues have doubled in the last seven years or so, and who are only concerned with not breaking from the other teams in their monopoly to keep player salaries depressed. As ticket-buying fans, we should receive the best baseball product that our money can buy, not some profit-seeking diversion of money from the baseball product to the owners' pockets. Then what's the limit? 8 years for a pitcher is absurd. 8 years for a player over 30 is absurd. Just because it MIGHT not break the team doesn't mean it's a good idea. The question is what's the limit. I think 8 years for anyone except pre-arb superstar is bad business. EDIT: Probably would change to say mid-arb superstar, or <27 year-old FA (Miggy/Trout type)
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 30, 2015 10:15:42 GMT -5
There's not much difference between 7/210 and 8/240 I think a 38 year old David Price at $30M is a fairly significant difference than having him go off the books after year 7. I don't think it's going to take 8 years at 30 per, in particular if the Dodgers already have Greinke locked up. There just aren't enough teams with enough $ and willing enough to go that much Agree on this. Just last year, it took the Nats to arrange that 210 mil deal through deferments with Scherzer. I know more teams are in need of a SP, just don't see more than a few teams being able to afford Greinke/Price. One will be available. The history for FA pitchers in their 30's is only getting worse as time goes on. GM's have to be noticing this.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 30, 2015 14:01:11 GMT -5
I still can't believe Zimmermann signed for only five years. That can't bode well for the next tier guys like Samardzija.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 30, 2015 14:25:48 GMT -5
I still can't believe Zimmermann signed for only five years. That can't bode well for the next tier guys like Samardzija. JZ wasn't good enough for anyone to want to give him that much money as a 36 year old IMO. He isn't all that much better than Samardzija or Kazmir.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Dec 2, 2015 9:49:03 GMT -5
well, we nailed this. Though I'd argue we gave it a year too late to the wrong guy.
|
|