Red Sox sign David Price

[Eddie Jurak]

(Sorry it's so long, sorry it's in this thread rather than the opt out one - I posted it here because that's where all the rest of the conversation was)

This was a fantastic post, by far the best one I've seen on the topic (including my own).

The three main things I took from this:

1. For a 33 year old pitcher, the value of being able to opt out of 4/$127 is very low. In the event that he is stellar for the next 3 years it will rise in value, but right now it isn't worth all that much to him - there are many scenarios where he is unlikely to opt out.

2. The risk the Sox are taking on is also pretty low: they lose if they would prefer to keep him at 4/$127 and he opts out. That's possible, but not especially likely. It is pretty clear that the Sox see the main value here at the first 3 years anyway.

3. Can't evaluate this by looking only at the best and worst case scenarios.

Thanks!

 

[Rovin Romine]

Good one, I had forgotten about Tom Gordon. Should also mention the '86 team with Rice, Baylor, Oil Can, and Dave Henderson.

Factor in Ortiz, Hanley, Xander, Panda, Rusney, E-Rod, Koji, and Taz, and this is going to be the least white team they've ever had.

If you're going with "non-white," I'd say the recent most recognizable players on the Sox for the past decade-ish were Pedro, Manny, and Ortiz. But I think the team's been pretty diverse since the 90s. We've had a lot of short term players come through. Look at B-ref by year and you'll see a lot of (for me) half-forgotten faces in the top ten WAR guys alone: BH Kim, Cliff Floyd, Urbina, Everett, O-Cab, Crisp, Renteria, Dice-K, Oki, etc.

Again, if we're considering "non white" (a vague term) there are a lot of Latin players who might qualify: Lowell, Victor Martinez, Alex Gonzalez, Adrian Gonzalez, etc. I suppose, when you get down to it, Nomar is kind of a push, as is Damon (neanderthal) and Pedroia (gnome).

 

[BaseballJones]

It's amazing to me how much of this thread is dedicated to a conversation about the opt-out clause, and how little is focused on how much better the Red Sox are with Price in the fold.

Folks, the team we root for is remarkably better right now. The on-field product is substantially improved. Our chances for a championship (AL East, AL, and World Series) just went up dramatically. This team had three major needs going into the offseason, and before the winter meetings successfully acquired players to fill all three needs without giving up any major pieces (Margot and Guerra might sting, but still...).

I freaking cannot wait to watch this team in 2016. Any chance we can talk more about Price's actual likely impact on the rotation? What might it mean for the rest of the rotation guys? Are we looking at Kelly moving to the bullpen (my preferred option) or trading one of those guys? What else might DDski have up his sleeve or is he pretty much done?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I can't see Kelly staying in the rotation unless Miley is moved, but I don't see why you'd do that. It lessens your overall depth in case of Clay pulling a Clay, and I doubt at this point you're going to get equal value for him. Kelly's ceiling might be higher than Miley's, but his consistency level isn't even in the same stratosphere, and that becomes less of an issue one inning at a time vs. one start at a time.

 

[YTF]

We all want to see Price become worth every penny of that contract, but in addition to what we expect from him on game day there is one residual affect from this signing that I'm hoping to see. That would be Price bonding well with the rest of this staff especially Eduardo and perhaps even Kelly. Not sure if he's ever embraced the mentor or big brother role, but I think he's young enough where he'll hopefully be cool about spending some time with Rodriquez as well as some of the other young arms. Hopefully Porcello serves as some sort of bridge between Price and the others. Oh and can you imagine Price having Pedro to bounce things off during spring training or when he might slump a little?

 

[crystalline]

So it's completely possible that his market value would be higher than the 4/127 if he had the opt out, but actually not if the Sox were trying to trade him.

OK, it's a subtle point, but it's there. So what you may be asking? Who cares? Well there's a reason you might care. There's no good way to short the market in baseball. If you think someone is undervalued, you try to sign them or trade for them. Great. If you think they're overvalued all you can do is not have them on your team. The player opt out actually offers a way to short the market. So say you believe you'll do well in the first 3 years but don't really want the last 4 years. You also believe the market for mid-30s pitchers is inefficient (I think this is pretty clearly true btw). You know that if you try to trade him after 3 years, the very act of trying to trade him will reduce his value. So you give him the opt out as a way to essentially allow yourselves to trade him without reducing his value.

In this way the opt out can have value to the team.

Are you saying the value to the team is realized as a change in contract dollars* right now? If so then I understand.

Good point on how the opt-out isn't likely to be worth much in AAV to Price if exercised. (Although it might allow him to get more years tacked on- as with ARod, Sabathia).


* aka the Price of the contract, if you will

 

[glennhoffmania]

NobodyInteresting is exactly right. If we were to hire a valuation expert and ask him to tell us what the contract is worth to Price in 2016 dollars, he would absolutely assign a value to the option. By definition if Price received value that means the Sox gave up value. But because of the market it could potentially work out in the Sox' favor. If it does, that doesn't mean the option wasn't for Price's benefit today. It only means that the circumstances worked out really well for the Sox, and that's entirely possible.

But none of this means that the option is a huge issue and one that should be dissected over the next three years. The downside for the Sox may end up being pretty minimal. I think that Ras and others are only trying to say that the value is on Price's side, but not that this value is extreme or even very significant. Those are two very different questions. I think some of the frustration is due to some people saying they'd prefer to have the opt out- that makes zero sense economically because it without a doubt has value today.

BaseballJones is right though. The focus should be on how much better the team is now, and whether the cost of this improvement was reasonable. The answer to the first question is clearly yes. I still think that this was an overpay though, but if that's what it took to convince him to reject the Cards' offer then maybe it was worth it.

 

[OCD SS]

Your point 3 reflects a consistent logic blindside in this discussion. In a standard contract, the team always has the option to jettison the player by trading. Op-out is never needed. In a standard 7 year contract, Red Sox can always trade him after 3 years and get something in return if the contract is undervalued at that point, or subsidize if the contract is overpriced. Op-out takes that option away from the team and give it to the player. However in this case, it's reasonable to say the contract in totality is a win for Red Sox, but definitely not because of the single op-out component.

It's not a blindside, I recognize how the value shifts between trying to trade the remainder of a 7 yr deal and a player opt-out. It has been discussed/ beaten to death in this thread, as has the idea that an opt-out is not needed is also not (necessarily) true: without it the Sox likely do not sign David Price.

I like it because when I look at the reality of the situation elite players do tend to opt-out (unless there's a health reason not to) whereas players with mega-deals are not as easily traded to recoup whatever "surplus value" is perceived. Instead those players are dumped too late when they need to be heavily subsidized and the return is never sparkling. Since we're talking about the mid-late 30's for a pitcher I am more optimistic that Price will voluntarily shorten the length of the Red Sox commitment rather than bet on the team trying to move him later. Again, this requires that the Sox be disciplined enough to let him walk away.

 

[leetinsley38]

NobodyInteresting is exactly right. If we were to hire a valuation expert and ask him to tell us what the contract is worth to Price in 2016 dollars, he would absolutely assign a value to the option. By definition if Price received value that means the Sox gave up value. But because of the market it could potentially work out in the Sox' favor. If it does, that doesn't mean the option wasn't for Price's benefit today. It only means that the circumstances worked out really well for the Sox, and that's entirely possible.

Yeah it's hard to dissect the opt out without knowing how much of a discount it bought the Sox (what the offer needed to be without an opt-out), if Price would have signed without it, etc.

Now that the contract is done, do you hope Price exercises it? I do.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I absolutely love this signing, and the team has just gotten substantially better. Not sure what sort of baseline we should be using for wins based on what we had exiting 2015, but I'm pretty sure the team at the end of the season was much better than their 78 win total indicated (better Porcello, no more Masterson, Napoli and Victorino, as much as I love those guys, gone). Things could still go wrong, but I think the baseline for this team in 2016 is something around 90 wins with no major regressions, and the chance to be even better if Hanley and Panda can perform to their career norms. My biggest concerns right now are: 1) Hanley being a butcher at first base, botching routine plays like handling 5-3 and 4-3 putouts, and 2) despite the Kimbrel acquisition, the workloads of Koji and Tazawa, who have been heavily ridden the past 2-3 years... I'd like another high leverage 7-8th inning guy to take some of the innings from those two... that guy might be in house already, but it's still a concern.

Factor in Ortiz, Hanley, Xander, Panda, Rusney, E-Rod, Koji, and Taz, and this is going to be the least white team they've ever had.

Now, if only we can get a God damn Whole Foods inside of Fenway, we'll be set.

 

[Pedro 4 99MVP]

Giving an opt-out to the player is a lose-lose for the club. Either he's not worth it and they're stuck with him or he's worth it and they lose him (or have to pay him more money). The situation where the player thinks he's worth more but the club thinks he's worth less so he opts out and everyone is happy is a fantasy.

No, it is not a lose/lose. Here is why:
He pitches great for 3 years and is worth the $93 million he has already earned. He opts out because he has had 3 great years. We lose the player, but we don't lose the deal. Let's say he gets hurt in his late 30s...then it's actually a win for us. We got his best years, somebody else paid for what he did for us, and they get screwed. We win because we didn't pay $30+ million for his late 30s.
The only way it is a lose/lose is if we feel like we NEED to be the team to re-sign him after he opts out. The MFY didn't lose on the first part of ARoid and CC, they lost because after they opted out, the MFY signed them for even more. They paid more for the late 30s than they did for the early 30s. That is when the club loses.
If he opts out and we take that money and spend it on the next Price, we don't lose.

 

[chrisfont9]

It's amazing to me how much of this thread is dedicated to a conversation about the opt-out clause, and how little is focused on how much better the Red Sox are with Price in the fold.

Folks, the team we root for is remarkably better right now. The on-field product is substantially improved. Our chances for a championship (AL East, AL, and World Series) just went up dramatically. This team had three major needs going into the offseason, and before the winter meetings successfully acquired players to fill all three needs without giving up any major pieces (Margot and Guerra might sting, but still...).

I freaking cannot wait to watch this team in 2016. Any chance we can talk more about Price's actual likely impact on the rotation? What might it mean for the rest of the rotation guys? Are we looking at Kelly moving to the bullpen (my preferred option) or trading one of those guys? What else might DDski have up his sleeve or is he pretty much done?

Oh I agree. Looks like there's a separate 2016 rotation thread.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah it's hard to dissect the opt out without knowing how much of a discount it bought the Sox (what the offer needed to be without an opt-out), if Price would have signed without it, etc.

Now that the contract is done, do you hope Price exercises it? I do.

Your point is part of why I thought this could be an overpay. Not only did they outbid STL by ~$30m (if the stories are correct) but they added an option. This kind of reminds me of the Sabathia situation.

At this point I can't say if I hope Price exercises. It would obviously depend on what alternatives they have to replace him either in house or in FA with the money saved if he walks. If he puts up three great seasons and shows no signs of decline in 2018 why would we prefer he leaves? By 2019 guys like Harvey, Kershaw, etc. could be getting 10/400 and the Sox could have Price for 4/124.

 

[NobodyInteresting]

Are you saying the value to the team is realized as a change in contract dollars* right now? If so then I understand.

Good point on how the opt-out isn't likely to be worth much in AAV to Price if exercised. (Although it might allow him to get more years tacked on- as with ARod, Sabathia).


* aka the Price of the contract, if you will

Not quite, though that point is hopefully true too.

I'm saying that because of signaling, it might not actually be possible to trade Price after 3 years (for fair value). The fact that you're trying to trade him can reduce his value because the teams you're trying to trade him to understand that you have more information than you do. But you don't actually want him for those last four years because you don't expect him to be worth keeping. The opt out gives you a way out when a trade isn't possible.

Essentially the "option has no value to the team" argument makes two assumptions.
1) That trying to trade a player doesn't affect his value and that you can always trade a player for "fair" value
2) That other players in the market behave rationally so the market acts efficiently and everyone can see and understand the value of the asset.

Neither of those is definitively true. In fact, both of them look clearly false to me.

And to reiterate for those who didn't read my original post - this is a subtle point. I don't know whether the Red Sox FO are thinking about it in this way, though I hope they do at least understand the argument.

To put numbers on it. Say we get to the end of year 3 with the contract as it stands. Price is owed 4/127.

With opt out
Sox value him at say $100m over that period.
Other team values him at $135m, he's been good, they want him.
Price opts out. The Sox are happy. The other team are happy. Price is happy.

At least until the Sox $100m valuation turns out to be right - last 4 years value is allocated Sox $0m, Price +$35m, Other team -$35m

Now with no opt out - the standard argument
Sox value him at $100m
Other team values him at $135m, he's been good, they want him.
Sox trade him for $8m of value and are therefore $8m better off than with the opt out

Value allocation here is Sox +$8m, Price +$27m, Other team -$35m

With no opt out - the more subtle argument
Sox value him at $100m
Other team values him at $135m UNTIL the Sox come to them and say "hey we're willing to trade Price, interested?"
Other team thinks about and realises this means that the Sox probably value Price at less than $127m. And they know that the Sox know more about Price than they do.
Other team therefore reduces their valuation to $115m.

So then the Sox either keep Price and pay him $127m for $100m of value or (better) throw in $12m to get the other team to take him

Value allocation here is Sox -$12m, Price +$27m, Other team -$15m

Using the standard textbook option valuation argument the Sox would be $8m better off in this example without the opt out.
Using better real-world understanding of trading & negotiations, the Sox would be $12m better off with the opt out.

These numbers are all made-up, and I'm not saying the Sox are big winners with the opt out. I'm saying that going beyond standard introduction to options pricing actually can lead to the option having value to the Sox with reasonable assumptions about how people actually behave, under some circumstances.

I think you'd probably have to have a pretty screwed up set of expectations to value this side to the optionality at more than whatever the Sox are losing out on under the standard argument, but I think it is there.

(Note that all this analysis is done at time 0, not in 3 years time)

 

[OnWisc]

No, it is not a lose/lose. Here is why:
He pitches great for 3 years and is worth the $93 million he has already earned. He opts out because he has had 3 great years. We lose the player, but we don't lose the deal. Let's say he gets hurt in his late 30s...then it's actually a win for us. We got his best years, somebody else paid for what he did for us, and they get screwed. We win because we didn't pay $30+ million for his late 30s.
The only way it is a lose/lose is if we feel like we NEED to be the team to re-sign him after he opts out. The MFY didn't lose on the first part of ARoid and CC, they lost because after they opted out, the MFY signed them for even more. They paid more for the late 30s than they did for the early 30s. That is when the club loses.
If he opts out and we take that money and spend it on the next Price, we don't lose.

The opt-out is a call option Price holds on his MV after year three. If he averages 220 Ks and a 1.00 WHIP for the next three seasons, his MV may exceed what remains on the deal and he'll opt out. Even if Red Sox management feels like he's cooked at that point and are glad he opted out, and even if he blows out his arm in his first ST start with his new club, it's still a loss to the Sox because they could've traded his below market deal for something of value at the end of season three had there been no opt-out.

Now should there be a no-trade where a below MV contract has no trade value, or a player misassesses his MV and ends up opting out of an above market deal, or, perhaps in Price's case, the opt-out was included because he was pressed to make a decision and wanted an escape route from Boston where he could possibly opt out of an above market deal if he hated it that much....those all muddy the issue. But in the absence of a no-trade, poor market assessment by the player/agent or non-economic considerations, the opt-out detracts from the value of the contract.

 

[Jimbodandy]

If Price pitches well enough for three years that 4/127 is low enough for him to walk away from, I'll be pretty damn psyched. Of course the opt out benefits the player. And the three years of elite-caliber pitching benefits the team too.

 

[YouLookAdopted]

I can't see Kelly staying in the rotation unless Miley is moved, but I don't see why you'd do that. It lessens your overall depth in case of Clay pulling a Clay, and I doubt at this point you're going to get equal value for him. Kelly's ceiling might be higher than Miley's, but his consistency level isn't even in the same stratosphere, and that becomes less of an issue one inning at a time vs. one start at a time.

I was listening to the interview with Frank Wren last night and someone asked him if the Sox wanted to make anymore moves to bolster the bullpen. He said that a current Sox starter is probably going to end up in the bullpen.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Now that the contract is done, do you hope Price exercises it? I do.

Far too soon to say, but...

- If I had the option of signing David Price for 3/90 or 7/217, I'd take the 3/90 without a second thought.

- And if David Price was 33 right now with another 600-750 IP on his arm, I'm not sure he'd be my top choice at 4/127. In this case though, it depends too on what the FA market will look like after 2018 in terms of talent and cost.

- HOWEVER, under the next CBA, the salaries being given out in 2018 might be much higher if the luxury tax threshold is removed. This leads to a bit of a conundrum, as there's a very good chance Price can opt out and get say $35-50M (if no luxury tax, I'd expect salaries to exceed $50M rather quickly, but it's hard to project by how much), causing the Sox to lose a great deal of value. At the very least, I think we'll see a hefty raise to the luxury tax threshold, which will still spike salaries, so if David Price doesn't opt out it probably means things aren't going so well.

So yeah, I hope he exercises his option, all things considered. If he does, it'll probably sting, but it's far better than the alternative. Him being a top 5 pitcher, and not opting out isn't really a realistic option, in my eyes.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

An interesting Fangraphs read on the opt out clause. Estimates the value of the opt out is $24 million:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-the-opt-out-clause-in-the-david-price-contract/

 

[nvalvo]

- HOWEVER, under the next CBA, the salaries being given out in 2018 might be much higher if the luxury tax threshold is removed. This leads to a bit of a conundrum, as there's a very good chance Price can opt out and get say $35-50M (if no luxury tax, I'd expect salaries to exceed $50M rather quickly, but it's hard to project by how much), causing the Sox to lose a great deal of value. At the very least, I think we'll see a hefty raise to the luxury tax threshold, which will still spike salaries, so if David Price doesn't opt out it probably means things aren't going so well.

The climate leading up to the CBA negotiations seems like a massively important subtext for everything about this deal, and Henry's expectations are *much* more informed about that than ours are in that he actually knows the other owners. If the cap is raised by $20m or something, no big deal — that won't transform the salary structure of MLB. But I think the players will want much more, and I think they'll get some of it.

$30m deals seem huge now. But that's an artifact of the CBA-imposed "budget" of $189m, which makes such a deal about 16 percent of payroll. If that number goes up considerably...

 

[YouLookAdopted]

There is the possibility that DD's strategy for the team doesn't pan out over the next three years, but Price maintains his ace status. In that scenario, Price opts out in an offseason in which the Sox are looking to shed payroll and go in a different direction with regard to the rest of the team. That's a scenario in which both parties are probably happy to see the opt out exercised.

 

[glennhoffmania]

An interesting Fangraphs read on the opt out clause. Estimates the value of the opt out is $24 million:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-the-opt-out-clause-in-the-david-price-contract/

Not quite. They say that the option is worth $10m-$13m, but that the contract overall may be about $24m less than what Price projects to be worth over the next 7 years.

 

[OnWisc]

There is the possibility that DD's strategy for the team doesn't pan out over the next three years, but Price maintains his ace status. In that scenario, Price opts out in an offseason in which the Sox are looking to shed payroll and go in a different direction with regard to the rest of the team. That's a scenario in which both parties are probably happy to see the opt out exercised.

Yes, but in the absence of that opt out, the Sox could have simply dealt Price's below market deal (a safe assumption if he's choosing to opt-out) for something of value.

EDIT: The concept of Price blowing doors on the AL for three seasons and opting out is far more attractive than being saddled with an underperforming contract for seven years. I'd rather forego upside than ensure downside, but it's still a cost.

If I buy a bunch of Apple stock tomorrow and write call options against it at a 50% premium, and at expiration the stock has doubled, I'm happy with my return- certainly far happier than had the options expired out of the money- but I'd still be better off had I never sold them.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I don't like David Price. I understand he's one of the best pitchers in baseball and so great add for my favorite team and all, but I don't like him ever since he beaned Papi in 2014. I don't mind beaning a player and I understand it's all part of the game and all that. How can a guy love Pedro and not understand that? But to me the difference is that Pedro would move you off the plate or outright hit you (usually in the ass) because you were crowding the plate, whereas Price beaned Papi simply because Papi looked at his 2nd HR in the playoff game a bit too long for Price's liking, so he beaned him the next time he saw him six months later.

I'll obviously root for the Sox when Price is pitching, and I'll give him the chance to change my opinion that he's a big overly-sensitive baby, but as a fan I really don't like him.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Not quite, though that point is hopefully true too.

I'm saying that because of signaling, it might not actually be possible to trade Price after 3 years (for fair value). The fact that you're trying to trade him can reduce his value because the teams you're trying to trade him to understand that you have more information than you do. But you don't actually want him for those last four years because you don't expect him to be worth keeping. The opt out gives you a way out when a trade isn't possible.

Essentially the "option has no value to the team" argument makes two assumptions.
1) That trying to trade a player doesn't affect his value and that you can always trade a player for "fair" value
2) That other players in the market behave rationally so the market acts efficiently and everyone can see and understand the value of the asset.

Neither of those is definitively true. In fact, both of them look clearly false to me.

And to reiterate for those who didn't read my original post - this is a subtle point. I don't know whether the Red Sox FO are thinking about it in this way, though I hope they do at least understand the argument.

To put numbers on it. Say we get to the end of year 3 with the contract as it stands. Price is owed 4/127.

With opt out
Sox value him at say $100m over that period.
Other team values him at $135m, he's been good, they want him.
Price opts out. The Sox are happy. The other team are happy. Price is happy.

At least until the Sox $100m valuation turns out to be right - last 4 years value is allocated Sox $0m, Price +$35m, Other team -$35m

Now with no opt out - the standard argument
Sox value him at $100m
Other team values him at $135m, he's been good, they want him.
Sox trade him for $8m of value and are therefore $8m better off than with the opt out

Value allocation here is Sox +$8m, Price +$27m, Other team -$35m

With no opt out - the more subtle argument
Sox value him at $100m
Other team values him at $135m UNTIL the Sox come to them and say "hey we're willing to trade Price, interested?"
Other team thinks about and realises this means that the Sox probably value Price at less than $127m. And they know that the Sox know more about Price than they do.
Other team therefore reduces their valuation to $115m.

So then the Sox either keep Price and pay him $127m for $100m of value or (better) throw in $12m to get the other team to take him

Value allocation here is Sox -$12m, Price +$27m, Other team -$15m

Using the standard textbook option valuation argument the Sox would be $8m better off in this example without the opt out.
Using better real-world understanding of trading & negotiations, the Sox would be $12m better off with the opt out.

These numbers are all made-up, and I'm not saying the Sox are big winners with the opt out. I'm saying that going beyond standard introduction to options pricing actually can lead to the option having value to the Sox with reasonable assumptions about how people actually behave, under some circumstances.

I think you'd probably have to have a pretty screwed up set of expectations to value this side to the optionality at more than whatever the Sox are losing out on under the standard argument, but I think it is there.

(Note that all this analysis is done at time 0, not in 3 years time)

Let me add one more thing: the player's option is his alone. It's not actually reliant on any team's valuation of the player. It's possible (see, for example, the recent collection of qualifying offer rejects) that the player over-estimates their own value and opts out, and ends up getting less than their original contract.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Or, a big sized ace-hole ... but, to each his own.

This isn't getting enough love.

 

[AB in DC]

NobodyInteresting is exactly right. If we were to hire a valuation expert and ask him to tell us what the contract is worth to Price in 2016 dollars, he would absolutely assign a value to the option.

And that value will pale in comparison to the $217 million that is already guaranteed on the contract.

And to the Sox, it would be offset by the likelihood of an additional draft pick that may result (which is unknowable because it will depend on the next CBA)


...so why are we talking so much about such a minor piece of the deal?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't like David Price. I understand he's one of the best pitchers in baseball and so great add for my favorite team and all, but I don't like him ever since he beaned Papi in 2014.

Wait, what incident are you talking about? If it's the famous Ortiz/Carp double-plunk game, Price definitely did not "bean" Ortiz unless you're saying that Papi has his head up his ass.

 

[glennhoffmania]

And that value will pale in comparison to the $217 million that is already guaranteed on the contract.

And to the Sox, it would be offset by the likelihood of an additional draft pick that may result (which is unknowable because it will depend on the next CBA)


...so why are we talking so much about such a minor piece of the deal?

That's pretty much the point some are trying to make. The option may not have significant value but it has value. To the Sox it has none as of today. As far as the draft pick goes, they could also get it when he walks after 7 years. The option doesn't create a new possibility of a draft pick.

Why it's being discussed so much is simply that some people seem to really believe that the option is a net benefit to the Sox when that simply isn't true. I don't think anyone is saying it's a huge issue or it turns a good deal into a bad one. But celebrating its inclusion is really odd.

 

[E5 Yaz]

espn: "We need pitching, and David Price is a tremendous pitcher and has shown it for years. Hes an elite pitcher, and that's what we need." David Ortiz to Enrique Rojas

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Wait, what incident are you talking about? If it's the famous Ortiz/Carp double-plunk game, Price definitely did not "bean" Ortiz unless you're saying that Papi has his head up his ass.

I mean, are you going to say that the HBP in the May 30, 2014 game from Price was unintentional or that it wasn't a "bean"ing? Because if so you can just agree to disagree with me, David Ortiz and the home plate umpire at the time.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

He's saying that the "bean" is the head, not the ass.

Correct term is "plunk"

I'll go back to sleep now.

 

[Average Reds]

That's pretty much the point some are trying to make. The option may not have significant value but it has value. To the Sox it has none as of today. As far as the draft pick goes, they could also get it when he walks after 7 years. The option doesn't create a new possibility of a draft pick.

Why it's being discussed so much is simply that some people seem to really believe that the option is a net benefit to the Sox when that simply isn't true. I don't think anyone is saying it's a huge issue or it turns a good deal into a bad one. But celebrating its inclusion is really odd.

I have not taken part in the "options conversation" because my past experience told me how it would go. But it absolutely makes my head explode to watch people contort themselves into a pretzel trying to create a scenario where the exercise of an opt-out benefits the club and then using that possible outcome to justify (or even celebrate) the inclusion of an opt-out clause in the contract.

The inclusion of an opt-out clause never benefits the club. This is especially so in a market (for baseball players) that is fundamentally irrational given the limited nature of the market, the lack of transparency and imperfect nature of the known information.

Whether the ultimate outcome works to the club's benefit is another matter, and utterly unrelated to the point.

 

[foulkehampshire]

When was the last time the Sox signed an top tier ace SP out of FA?

Tiant?

 

[Oil Can Dan]

He's saying that the "bean" is the head, not the ass.

Correct term is "plunk"

I'll go back to sleep now.

Well alright then. Back to sleep for me then as well.

 

[DJnVa]

I mean, are you going to say that the HBP in the May 30, 2014 game from Price was unintentional or that it wasn't a "bean"ing? Because if so you can just agree to disagree with me, David Ortiz and the home plate umpire at the time.

A beaning means in the head.

And Soriano and Jeter may disagree with your "Pedro hits them on the ass" take.

 

[koufax37]

So away from the opt out and back to the pitcher, wow...I am excited about Price.

Elite stuff, but with the command and lefthandedness to lose a little stuff and still excel, similar to Hamels. Healthy strike thrower with body type and mechanics to stay healthy (although I said and thought the same thing about Cliff Lee, so knock on wood).

While I don't love years 6 and 7, unless he isn't healthy, I don't think predicted decline plus predicted salary inflation has this being a crippling over pay down the road.

I prefer this contract to Lester's remaining 5/130 straight up, and even more so when looking at the next three years and five years.

I think the post season narrative is obviously overblown and I think everybody here would agree. He hasn't been ineffective or folded under pressure in any of his starts. He has had some bad bounces, bad sequences, and has thrown some hittable predictable 95mph fastballs a couple of times where he maybe felt like he was going to throw unhittable 97s or where he more likely should have continued to pitch. So while I think his selection, execution, and fortune on a handful of pitches should be better, I don't think it represents any inherent shortcoming in ability or psychology. He seems to have given up an unlucky number of hits, and an unexpected number of homeruns, while showing durability with excellent walk and strikeout numbers while pitching at least six innings in every post season start.

Similarly, I am happy that his Fenway sample shows he is apparently comfortable in the surroundings, I don't think it is in any way meaningful.

What is meaningful is that over 1400+ innings in 8 seasons he is an exceptionally effective and durable pitcher who throws strikes, eliminates the running game, pitches deep into games, and is intensely competitive.

 

[AB in DC]

As far as the draft pick goes, they could also get it when he walks after 7 years. The option doesn't create a new possibility of a draft pick.

Wouldn't the Sox need to make a qualifying offer to Price for that to happen? (pending CBA negotiation of course)
Seems unlikely for a 37+ year old.

 

[vadertime]

When was the last time the Sox signed an top tier ace SP out of FA?

Tiant?

I would say Viola. Had a 3rd place Cy Young finish 2 years before signing and was an all star in his last year with the Mets before signing. Was 31 when he signed, so still was expected to have some strong years in him.

 

[Why Not Grebeck?]

Seeing one source saying Dodgers might be offering Greinke 6/210.

That makes the Price deal look like a steal, right?

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

When was the last time the Sox signed an top tier ace SP out of FA?

Tiant?

Tiant was a scrap-heap pickup after being released by Atlanta in May of '71. (Pre-McNally/Messersmith decision, so not a "free agent era" signing regardless.)

So the answer to your question is never.

 

[sfip]

Here's the obligatory response to anyone who says we shouldn't care how much the contract is. Note, it doesn't talk about opt-outs.

 

[moondog80]

I would say Viola. Had a 3rd place Cy Young finish 2 years before signing and was an all star in his last year with the Mets before signing. Was 31 when he signed, so still was expected to have some strong years in him.

How about DiceK?

For more traditional FA, believe it or not Mike Torrez was kind of a big deal:

ERA+, 3 years prior to signing:

Frank Viola: 110
Matt Clement: 112
Mike Torrez : 115

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Seeing one source saying Dodgers might be offering Greinke 6/210.

That makes the Price deal look like a steal, right?

If that's true then sure. It's also insane even by Dodgers standards. But I can't believe they would go that nuts.

 

[uncannymanny]

When was the last time the Sox signed an top tier ace SP out of FA?

Tiant?

Edit: Being an idiot.

 

[TimScribble]

When was the last time the Sox signed an top tier ace SP out of FA?

Tiant?

Would Lackey have qualified as a top tier SP when he signed?

 

[chrisfont9]

How about DiceK?

For more traditional FA, believe it or not Mike Torrez was kind of a big deal:

ERA+, 3 years prior to signing:

Frank Viola: 110
Matt Clement: 112
Mike Torrez : 115

Torrez for sure. In '75 he won 20 games for Baltimore and garnered some MVP votes. In '76 he was better statistically, for Oakland, with a 134 ERA+ and 5.6 bWAR. In '77 he was the Yankees' postseason ace, with two complete game wins in the World Series. Then we signed him. Strangely, he never once finished in the top ten in AL Cy Young voting, which says something about how he was viewed by the industry folks at the time. Classic 1970s Red Sox to ignore that sort of evidence.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Would Lackey have qualified as a top tier SP when he signed?

Depends on whether "top tier SP" is constant or relative to the market. He was the best available pitcher in free agency that year, without question (the next biggest FA contract to a starter that winter was $29M to Randy Wolf). He was certainly at least a tier below the best pitchers in the game, however.

 

[uncannymanny]

Would Lackey have qualified as a top tier SP when he signed?

Probably not since he was trending down, as pointed out by most at the time of the signing. Price has only trended as very excellent his entire career. I don't think the Sox have signed a pitcher of this caliber from FA in my lifetime at least.

 

[Hagios]

Here's a hypothetical. You're sitting at home and see a flash of light and David Price's agent Bo McKinnis appears in front of you. He explains that he is from the year 2018 and David Price is deciding whether or not to exercise his option and will defer to your opinion. He explains that Price has pitched the past three seasons with a FIP of 3.19 (his career average prior to signing with the Sox). Do you tell Price to opt out?

I would guess that everyone, including the "options only help the player, not the team" crowd says yes. So something is missing. Do players irrationally overvalue themselves? The winner's curse? Something else?