I'll be dropping the microphone now.7/$210 with opt out after 3 years.
2016: $32 mil
2017: $33 mil
2018: $33 mil
2019: $28 mil
2020: $28 mil
2021: $28 mil
2022: $28 mil
New CBA after 2016 right? I'm sure the cap goes up from $189 and probably gets reset regardless. I'm guessing they have little opposition to going well beyond the luxury cap in 2016 if they're considering Price at all.
Boston officials were blown away by Greinke’s intellect when they met with him during the recruiting process. They were especially impressed with how Greinke broke down players in the lower levels of the team's farm system. But according to a source, as soon as he left the room, Red Sox officials knew they weren’t signing him because he was a bad fit in Boston. They sensed that Greinke wanted either to slide into a rotation behind an established No. 1 or to pitch as a No. 1 in a smaller market with less pressure to lead a staff.
No, it wouldn't. Especially given what the Marlins are reportedly asking.So if Price went to St. Louis and we had signed Greinke instead, trading for Fernandez would be imperative.
That statement is self-contradictory. If trading for Fernandez after signing Greinke were imperative in the minds of management, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SIGNED GREINKE and would most likely have turned to Cueto rather than trade the entirety of the top ten prospects list for Fernandez.So if Price went to St. Louis and we had signed Greinke instead, trading for Fernandez would be imperative.
Gammons on Jose Fernandez. Insanity.“We thought we might be able to piece something together with the Red Sox,” said a Marlins official. “With ERod (Eduardo Rodriguez), Mookie Betts, Christian Vazquez, Yoan Moncada and another pitcher I thought we had something that might work.” Why not?
"Why not?" I'm glad Dombrowski knows the answer to that question. No thank you at that cost.Gammons
Plus, the extra pitcher left unnamed by the Marlins official was probably Espinoza."Why not?" I'm glad Dombrowski knows the answer to that question. No thank you at that cost.
That sounds like a bad fantasy trade offer. Let's counter with Pablo Sandoval, Josh Rutledge, Stephen Wright, Brandon Workman, and Bryce BrentzGammons on Jose Fernandez. Insanity.
That was coming from a Marlins official. On what planet do these guys live? I'm not sure the Sox would trade Betts straight up for Fernandez - I wouldn'tGammons on Jose Fernandez. Insanity.
Let's test that theory. 1 year, $25m. Let's see just how bad he wants to be a member of this teamJust read something about Cueto wanting to come to Boston and it was his #1 choice. I wonder if this is just his agent trying to pull Boston into the race and see how flexible Cueto would be financially.
Which wouldn't surprise me (re: Offering Cueto $120m+)So unless a team like the Dodgers shocks the world and steps up into that price range
Not that badly.Let's test that theory. 1 year, $25m. Let's see just how bad he wants to be a member of this team
If any team is willing to absorb all of Porcello's contract, which looks to be about market rate, I would love for the Sox to offer Cueto 6/121, with the sixth year being a team option.Not that badly.
I hope we're at least exploring this.
Which wouldn't surprise me (re: Offering Cueto $120m+)
First off, if the 6th year is a team option, you arent really offering 6/121, you're really offering 5/101 or whatever.If any team is willing to absorb all of Porcello's contract, which looks to be about market rate, I would love for the Sox to offer Cueto 6/121, with the sixth year being a team option.
First off, if the 6th year is a team option, you arent really offering 6/121, you're really offering 5/101 or whatever.
Second, your two statements are quite contradictory. How can 4/82.5 for Porcello be "market" if Cueto is only worth 5/101? One has a career ERA+ of 96; the other 122.
I was thinking (dreaming?) about this the other day. If we hadn't extended Porcello, what would his market be right now? Less/more/same as what we signed him to? I think the market would have put him somewhere between J.A.Happ (Porcello's better)/Chen (same AAV?) and Samardzija (comparable, as suggested above?)/Cueto (Porcello not as good). I don't think he would have got a 6 year offer. At 5 years, I don't think he would have hit $20M/AAV. His best option might have been a 3 year, high AAV deal that let's him hit FA again at a relatively young age. Or a 1-year pillow deal....As for Porcello, look at what Samardzija got this offseason (5/$90). Similar stats last year and Samardzija is almost four years older than Porcello. I understand the counter argument to that is Porcello has never had a season like Samardzija had in 2014 but factoring in the age difference, there's a good argument that Porcello is at the market rate. Looking at it another way, when Porcello's contract expires, he'll still be younger than Samardzija is now.
As for why anyone would take Porcello when they could sign Cueto themselves, it's a decent point. Again you have to look at age, contract length--although if it's a team option for Cueto in year 6, 1 year difference isn't huge--and injury risk over the course of the deal. If another team believes in Porcello's 2nd half performance, I think it's possible that they would value Porcello over Cueto going forward, especially if a team is worried about Cueto's arm holding up. ...
Yeah, whether you consider it market rate or slightly over, I've got more confidence betting on Porcello earning his paycheck for the next four years (ages 27-30) than I would on Cueto earning his for anywhere from four to six years (ages 30-33/35). And that's before considering that Cueto has already had some elbow issues crop up. Cueto might have the higher ceiling, but he carries a lot more risk.The idea of trading Porcello (assuming no subsidy necessary) to turn his money into Cueto is intriguing, but a 6-year deal for Cueto makes me very nervous. I really don't see him staying healthy for 6 years. And there's some not inconsequential performance-in-the-AL East risk, too, given his pedestrian numbers with KC.
But Cueto loves PedroYeah, whether you consider it market rate or slightly over, I've got more confidence betting on Porcello earning his paycheck for the next four years (ages 27-30) than I would on Cueto earning his for anywhere from four to six years (ages 30-33/35). And that's before considering that Cueto has already had some elbow issues crop up. Cueto might have the higher ceiling, but he carries a lot more risk.
In that case, let's seal that bromance with a Pillow Package: Cueto takes a one-year, Fun with Pedro in Boston Deal for $10M, and Pedro gets $2M to play Yoda and hang out with Johnny all season, dispensing wisdom during his BP sessions, etc. Really, who says no??But Cueto loves Pedro
Presumably if they hadn't extended Porcello they'd get a pick when he walked, so the comparison is Porcello for 4/82.5 vs. Zimmermann for 5/110 minus their pick plus a pick from whomever signs Porcello. I'd take option B everyday. But the biggest X factor is that Zimmermann supposedly only wanted to be in the midwest and maybe he took less to make that happen.Yes, I was critical of the Porcello extension but now that we are onto 2016 it's better evaluated in the context of the actual alternatives. I mean, I'd take Zimmerman (5/110) over Porcello (4/82.5) but they aren't identical contracts, especially when you throw in the draft pick, so who even knows if they would have considered him without Porcello on the roster. And who knows what Porcello would have received this off-season....I sort of doubt 4/82.5 but I'm not sure.
I expect he'd have gotten more. He and Samardzija have performed pretty much the same over the past few years; about league average in 2012 and 2013, career years in 2014, and well below expectations last season. Samardzija accumulated less WAR in those years and is 4 years older, but managed 5/90. I think Porcello could have easily topped that this offseason.Yes, I was critical of the Porcello extension but now that we are onto 2016 it's better evaluated in the context of the actual alternatives. I mean, I'd take Zimmerman (5/110) over Porcello (4/82.5) but they aren't identical contracts, especially when you throw in the draft pick, so who even knows if they would have considered him without Porcello on the roster. And who knows what Porcello would have received this off-season....I sort of doubt 4/82.5 but I'm not sure.
What's actually interesting about this off-season is that Porcello can turn this contract into a decent one if he just replicates his second half. The contracts being handed out are nuts. I think trying to make him something he wasn't caused the slow start.Yeah, I was thinking the Leake deal was evidence that they overpaid Porcello. Those last numbers confirm it.
It's still close though. They paid to keep the deal short and bought the option that he'd repeat his 2014 and be worth a ton. Porcello's solid finish and the signing of Price to take the pressure to be an ace away from his shoulders are both good bets on a bounce back.
When I heard about the flirtation with Greinke, I thought he was a bad fit for Boston. His struggles with anxiety and depression almost ended his career. Since Boston can be a brutal place even for players without those issues, I'm not surprised by this.Interesting tidbit about the Sox and Greinke via Tom Verducci:
Boston officials were blown away by Greinke’s intellect when they met with him during the recruiting process. They were especially impressed with how Greinke broke down players in the lower levels of the team's farm system. But according to a source, as soon as he left the room, Red Sox officials knew they weren’t signing him because he was a bad fit in Boston. They sensed that Greinke wanted either to slide into a rotation behind an established No. 1 or to pitch as a No. 1 in a smaller market with less pressure to lead a staff.