CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Other / General Sports => Red Sox / MLB => Topic started by: littleteapot on December 01, 2015, 05:17:17 PM
-
7 years 217mil. Opt out (I'm assuming for the player) after 3.
Thoughts?
-
$217 million, but who's counting?
-
$217 not $317.
That is absolutely silly money.
-
$217 million, but who's counting?
Fixed it, sorry. Pretty big typo lol.
I'm lukewarm on the deal, but I don't like the opt out. Why are we taking all the risk?
-
I love it. It's a lot of money, but he's the guy you bet on. A tall, long lefty who is fit and loose, has a smooth delivery with consistent success and no history of arm trouble. The Red Sox needed an ace and got one. I'm excited.
-
:police:Why not sign Greinke for 5-6 million less per year and less years. Price has been mediocre in the playoffs. How do you pay a guy like this ,the highest Money in baseball?
Rotation without anymore trades/signing
Starting
Price
Erod
Porcello
Kelly
Owens
Relief
Ross Jr.
Wright
Miley
Tazawa
Koji
Kimbrel
Gone
Bucholz
-
I love it. It's a lot of money, but he's the guy you bet on. A tall, long lefty who is fit and loose, has a smooth delivery with consistent success and no history of arm trouble. The Red Sox needed an ace and got one. I'm excited.
He is nothing like Pedro/schilling and can't depend on his offpitches for strikes consistently
After his power pitching goes out in 3 years then what?
-
Eh, I'm a bit skeptical. He's already 30, which means the last half of the deal will likely be a big pill for the Sox to swallow, and he's struggled in the postseason (though the sample size is a little on the small side).
He's definitely the regular-season ace the team needs. Here's to hoping they also sign a level-1B guy as well (Zimmerman type), in case one (or more) of E-Rod, Owens, Porcello, Kelly, and Miley conks out.
-
I love it. It's a lot of money, but he's the guy you bet on. A tall, long lefty who is fit and loose, has a smooth delivery with consistent success and no history of arm trouble. The Red Sox needed an ace and got one. I'm excited.
He is nothing like Pedro/schilling and can't depend on his offpitches for strikes consistently
After his power pitching goes out in 3 years then what?
I think that, in 3-4 years, the Sox will be happy with the deal if Price has helped them win at least one ring, even though he might be cooked by that point.
-
I know he had a QO, but I don't think you can possibly argue between this and the Zimmerman deal - that deal was way better.
-
I think it's a great move. It has risk, but is way smarter than the deals for Sandoval and Ramirez. If you're going to gamble, do it on elite pitching (particularly when it doesn't involve the Sox giving up any picks or prospects).
I also think the underrated part of the deal is that Price can opt out after 3 years, which may actually work out in the Sox favor if he does.
So a rotation of
Price
Buccholz
Porcello
Rodriguez
Miley
Move Kelly to the pen for another power arm and let Owens home is stuff a bit more in AAA.
I don't think Clay is a goner. At only 13 million per year, even 2/3 of a season for him is still a bargain, particularly when you have someone like Owens to step in if he goes down.
-
I love it. It's a lot of money, but he's the guy you bet on. A tall, long lefty who is fit and loose, has a smooth delivery with consistent success and no history of arm trouble. The Red Sox needed an ace and got one. I'm excited.
He is nothing like Pedro/schilling and can't depend on his offpitches for strikes consistently
After his power pitching goes out in 3 years then what?
He is nothing like Pedro. Pedro was arguably the best pitcher ever. But he was small with a short delivery and did not have success into his 30s. Who know how Price will look in 5 years, but he projects well. It's a gamble, but like I said he's the type of guy to gamble on.
-
Yeah, there's not real way to compare Price to Pedro. It's like comparing apples to hand grenades. Very different pitchers.
Also, the Sox acquired Pedro via trade not free agency.
-
Guess the Red Sox are over that whole "don't give monster contracts to pitchers over 30" thing.
Let's hope his playoff performance is better for the Sox than it has been for other teams.
On the other hand, it'd be nice just to make the playoffs, and Price will certainly help with that.
-
Hope he's stellar for the first 3 years then opts out before the serious decline occurs.
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
Not to get too political, but I see a lot about baseball truly being America's game and being quite a metaphor for the country itself.
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
Not to get too political, but I see a lot about baseball truly being America's game and being quite a metaphor for the country itself.
Interesting point.
Also -- isn't it kind of funny that most of our sports leagues operate on seemingly socialistic principles (salary caps, the worst teams get the best draft selections), while the biggest European sports leagues feature much more open player movement and acquisition rules, and relegate weaker teams?
As for money in baseball, it seems like it helps teams overcome mistakes, meaning the bigger market teams have a greater margin for error. It also allows them to sustain success once they put together a good team.
Nonetheless, plenty of smaller market teams win a lot of games and even go all the way. Kansas City and St. Louis aren't exactly huge markets. San Francisco has been hugely successful, as well, despite having a relatively modest payroll.
-
Awesome. The owners finally grew a pair. I love this signing.
Wonder if Big Papi and Price still got beef tho.
-
Wonder if Big Papi and Price still got beef tho.
I have a feeling they'll sit down, have a long conversation about all of the money they're both making, smile, and let bygones be bygones.
-
American sports show how important it is to have a well run organization. NBA teams like the Nets, Kings etc. are in such a quandry seemingly with no way out just because of poor management and a lack of consistency, but some teams in the MLB that have 1/3 of the financial resources of their opponents can manage to compete most years.
If you are run with no consistency in anything you do (like the Red Sox) it definitely helps to have money though.
-
Wonder if Big Papi and Price still got beef tho.
I have a feeling they'll sit down, have a long conversation about all of the money they're both making, smile, and let bygones be bygones.
yup. They will sit down on a private jet ride to vegas, arms around two supermodels each, sipping some fine cognac and hashing things out
-
Donbrowski. Why not go all the way and also sign Greinke to a 25 million dollars a year for 5 years contract.
Who can stop the Sox then??
I like our team defense and offense did a good job 2nd half of the 2nd half
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
Not to get too political, but I see a lot about baseball truly being America's game and being quite a metaphor for the country itself.
Interesting point.
Also -- isn't it kind of funny that most of our sports leagues operate on seemingly socialistic principles (salary caps, the worst teams get the best draft selections), while the biggest European sports leagues feature much more open player movement and acquisition rules, and relegate weaker teams?
As for money in baseball, it seems like it helps teams overcome mistakes, meaning the bigger market teams have a greater margin for error. It also allows them to sustain success once they put together a good team.
Nonetheless, plenty of smaller market teams win a lot of games and even go all the way. Kansas City and St. Louis aren't exactly huge markets. San Francisco has been hugely successful, as well, despite having a relatively modest payroll.
Of course smaller market teams can do well. If you disadvantage a group of people there will always be some who succeed despite the disadvantage. That isn't justification for maintaining the disadvantage (I know you weren't suggesting that).
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
Not to get too political, but I see a lot about baseball truly being America's game and being quite a metaphor for the country itself.
Interesting point.
Also -- isn't it kind of funny that most of our sports leagues operate on seemingly socialistic principles (salary caps, the worst teams get the best draft selections), while the biggest European sports leagues feature much more open player movement and acquisition rules, and relegate weaker teams?
As for money in baseball, it seems like it helps teams overcome mistakes, meaning the bigger market teams have a greater margin for error. It also allows them to sustain success once they put together a good team.
Nonetheless, plenty of smaller market teams win a lot of games and even go all the way. Kansas City and St. Louis aren't exactly huge markets. San Francisco has been hugely successful, as well, despite having a relatively modest payroll.
Of course smaller market teams can do well. If you disadvantage a group of people there will always be some who succeed despite the disadvantage. That isn't justification for maintaining the disadvantage (I know you weren't suggesting that).
it should be noted that baseball does have some revenue-sharing, and, more importantly, baseball's salary system is a LOT different than other sports. in baseball, teams control young players for many years on low-value deals, and they usually only get the mega-contracts when they're in their late twenties, a time when they're more prone to career-ending injuries or decline. compare that to the NBA, where guys are getting max contracts at age 23.
financially-weak teams benefit greatly from this system, as they can rely on young, cheap talent, and they are usually compensated with a high draft pick when their stars leave for the aforementioned mega-contracts.
this also means the 30+ year-old free-agents get way more money than they should, simply because the young players are getting hosed, leaving lots of cash floating around. so the red sox/dodgers/yankees etc do have the capability of signing those players, but only at hugely inflated prices.
in contrast, in the NBA, the stars should arguably be making MORE than what they are (i'd bet lebron would command $60M in the open market today). same with elite NFL QB's (especially if they're taking a big discount like tom brady). this makes it all the more essential to make one's given NBA market as enticing as possible, as you're getting better value for an elite star than what you're actually paying.
in short, while it is indeed tougher for small-market teams, they do have some ways they can succeed. and i'd much rather be a poor team in baseball than a poor person in america ;)
-
Redsox rotation for next season should be
Price
Erod
Porcello
Owens
Kelly
Middle relief/fill in starters
Miley
Wright
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I think the Price deal will end up being good and feel in the position they were in it was a move that needed to be made. But you're absolutely right about Lester in general which is one of the many reasons Lucchino and Cherington deserved to be ousted.
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
Price is better and younger.
The Sox got one of the best pitchers in the league locked up long term.
I'm not worried about it.
If DD can find a way to get rid of Hanley and Sandoval without giving up any significant prospects, the Sox will be in great shape.
You gotta respect what DD has done so far -- he said his objectives were to get a 4th outfielder, a closer, and an ace. He's done exactly that, and it's December 1st.
-
Price is better and younger.
... and signed for 7 years. They will be the same age when their current contracts expire, and there's a good chance that Lester would have taken something like 5, 125 if the Sox hadn't botched the initial negotiation. Instead, they gave this money to Porcello and we all know how that one is working out so far :)
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I don't think anyone can defend the way we handled the Lester situation, but Price is way better than Lester.
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I don't think anyone can defend the way we handled the Lester situation, but Price is way better than Lester.
Haven't we learned already that the abstract concept of "better" (on paper) means nothing until the player proves he can replicate these results at Fenway. There has been way too many examples of how it hasn't worked as planned.
-
Easiest thing in the world is to overpay for a supposed star. The only one who really worked out was Manny. Already hating the Dombrowski era.
-
Why not? The Red Sox and a few other teams have such an advantage over other teams (talk about an "integrity of the game" issue) that they may as well pay anything they can to get a top player. They have NOTHING to lose. They are able to make huge mistakes (have done so repeatedly) and not have to worry about long-term implications.
Baseball is a joke. 8 months (and counting) questioning the integrity of the NFL over 1 psi in a football compared with being able to field a team with a 250M payroll against teams that can't afford any mistakes and have 50M budgets. No integrity or fairness. Kansas City's excellence notwithstanding, the process is rigged way too much in favor of teams with big pockets.
Not to get too political, but I see a lot about baseball truly being America's game and being quite a metaphor for the country itself.
Interesting point.
Also -- isn't it kind of funny that most of our sports leagues operate on seemingly socialistic principles (salary caps, the worst teams get the best draft selections), while the biggest European sports leagues feature much more open player movement and acquisition rules, and relegate weaker teams?
As for money in baseball, it seems like it helps teams overcome mistakes, meaning the bigger market teams have a greater margin for error. It also allows them to sustain success once they put together a good team.
Nonetheless, plenty of smaller market teams win a lot of games and even go all the way. Kansas City and St. Louis aren't exactly huge markets. San Francisco has been hugely successful, as well, despite having a relatively modest payroll.
Of course smaller market teams can do well. If you disadvantage a group of people there will always be some who succeed despite the disadvantage. That isn't justification for maintaining the disadvantage (I know you weren't suggesting that).
it should be noted that baseball does have some revenue-sharing, and, more importantly, baseball's salary system is a LOT different than other sports. in baseball, teams control young players for many years on low-value deals, and they usually only get the mega-contracts when they're in their late twenties, a time when they're more prone to career-ending injuries or decline. compare that to the NBA, where guys are getting max contracts at age 23.
financially-weak teams benefit greatly from this system, as they can rely on young, cheap talent, and they are usually compensated with a high draft pick when their stars leave for the aforementioned mega-contracts.
this also means the 30+ year-old free-agents get way more money than they should, simply because the young players are getting hosed, leaving lots of cash floating around. so the red sox/dodgers/yankees etc do have the capability of signing those players, but only at hugely inflated prices.
in contrast, in the NBA, the stars should arguably be making MORE than what they are (i'd bet lebron would command $60M in the open market today). same with elite NFL QB's (especially if they're taking a big discount like tom brady). this makes it all the more essential to make one's given NBA market as enticing as possible, as you're getting better value for an elite star than what you're actually paying.
in short, while it is indeed tougher for small-market teams, they do have some ways they can succeed. and i'd much rather be a poor team in baseball than a poor person in america ;)
TP - As somebody who has been extremely critical of baseball's salary structure, this is probably the best argument I have ever seen for why it isn't so bad. Thanks.
As for the signing, I am totally psyched - on a seven year contract, it is a little peculiar that there is an opt out after year three, but acquiring a serious ace to go along with one of the best closers in baseball has me a lot more excited than last year. I realize we are probably stuck with Hanley and Panda, but hopefully one of them can get focused and come out strong this year.
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I don't think anyone can defend the way we handled the Lester situation, but Price is way better than Lester.
Haven't we learned already that the abstract concept of "better" (on paper) means nothing until the player proves he can replicate these results at Fenway. There has been way too many examples of how it hasn't worked as planned.
Price has an excellent ERA at Fenway. He's proven he can play at an elite level against the AL East. I'd have been more worried about Greinke
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I don't think anyone can defend the way we handled the Lester situation, but Price is way better than Lester.
Haven't we learned already that the abstract concept of "better" (on paper) means nothing until the player proves he can replicate these results at Fenway. There has been way too many examples of how it hasn't worked as planned.
I agree. But if we're talking about the abstract concept of which of those guys is better, it's Price hands down. Lester isn't "arguably just as good."
-
Fantastic. We spent $31 million a season for an aging pitcher who doesn't want to be here. In the meanwhile, the guy who is arguably just as good, more clutch, cheaper, and wanted to pitch in Boston is with the Cubs.
I don't think anyone can defend the way we handled the Lester situation, but Price is way better than Lester.
Haven't we learned already that the abstract concept of "better" (on paper) means nothing until the player proves he can replicate these results at Fenway. There has been way too many examples of how it hasn't worked as planned.
Price has an excellent ERA at Fenway. He's proven he can play at an elite level against the AL East. I'd have been more worried about Greinke
Yeah.
He has a 6-1 record with a 1.95 ERA and 0.95 WHIP in 11 career starts (74 innings) at Fenway Park. He held Red Sox batters to a .186 batting average, .261 on-base percentage, .289 slugging percentage and .550 OPS (292 plate appearances) in his 11 starts at Fenway.
This is in a sample about as small as the awful playoff sample everyone's griping about, which means (a) it's the greatest signing ever, (b) it's the worst signing ever, or (c) maybe we should chill out with all the extrapolating from small samples and just wait and see.