Jump to content

Offseason Rumors and Deals Around MLB


neveradoubt

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Remember when <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RedSox?src=hash">#RedSox</a> were shifting back to young players and avoiding huge FA deals? That was fun!</p>— robneyer (@robneyer) <a href="

">December 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">David Price's annual salaries: 30, 30, 30, 31, 32, 32. 32. No deferred money in deal. Opt out after 3 yrs <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/redsox?src=hash">#redsox</a></p>— Jerry Crasnick (@jcrasnick) <a href="

">December 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ortiz and their top 7 puts them at $133M - which is more than the Orioles are likely to spend on their 25 man roster. I can't wait until the Price deal blows up in their face.

But what if it doesn't? Aside from the relative absurdity that ANY athlete gets paid $31MM a year, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Price delivers four consecutive years of 18+ wins, is in the top 10 in ERA each of those years, and the Sox return to the playoffs routinely, maybe pick up a WS along the way. In the fifth year, Price begins to tail off and slides into a role as a #3 or #4 starter for the remaining 2-3 years of the deal. Would it have been worth it? The Sox are saying "yes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">David Price's annual salaries: 30, 30, 30, 31, 32, 32. 32. No deferred money in deal. Opt out after 3 yrs <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/redsox?src=hash">#redsox</a></p>? Jerry Crasnick (@jcrasnick) <a href="
">December 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This makes Scherzer's deal look economical.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if it doesn't? Aside from the relative absurdity that ANY athlete gets paid $31MM a year, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Price delivers four consecutive years of 18+ wins, is in the top 10 in ERA each of those years, and the Sox return to the playoffs routinely, maybe pick up a WS along the way. In the fifth year, Price begins to tail off and slides into a role as a #3 or #4 starter for the remaining 2-3 years of the deal. Would it have been worth it? The Sox are saying "yes."
Compared to Film stars they earn their money. Some actors make that much per film, which might involve 6-10 weeks actual work and incredible perks. At leat a ballplayer works hard 8 months out of the year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess those stories about him not using money as the chief factor in his decision were less then accurate.

31M AAV.

Ouch.

I think he and his agent were trying to get Chicago involved and they basically said "We do not want to sign you."

Has Price been a truly dominant pitcher since 2012? This seems way out there, even with Dumbro and Price having some history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to Film stars they earn their money. Some actors make that much per film, which might involve 6-10 weeks actual work and incredible perks. At leat a ballplayer works hard 8 months out of the year.

Very few actors make that much coin.

Very few athletes make that much coin either so... yeah it's another world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if it doesn't? Aside from the relative absurdity that ANY athlete gets paid $31MM a year, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Price delivers four consecutive years of 18+ wins, is in the top 10 in ERA each of those years, and the Sox return to the playoffs routinely, maybe pick up a WS along the way. In the fifth year, Price begins to tail off and slides into a role as a #3 or #4 starter for the remaining 2-3 years of the deal. Would it have been worth it? The Sox are saying "yes."

If they make the playoffs a bunch the contract will not be an issue, true. Seems nuts to think Price will be a front-end guy for much longer though (assuming you consider him a front-end guy now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to Film stars they earn their money. Some actors make that much per film, which might involve 6-10 weeks actual work and incredible perks. At leat a ballplayer works hard 8 months out of the year.

Well, if working 8 months out of the year is the gauge, what would you pay the best teacher in America? Perhaps they should adopt a free agency system?

David Price will likely participate in 33-40 games next season... He's arguably working harder than Papi, but not harder than Pedroia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sources say BOS separated itself from other teams significantly in the David Price bidding -- which is what they had to do to get him.</p>— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) <a href="

">December 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Cardinals supposed number two at substantially less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he and his agent were trying to get Chicago involved and they basically said "We do not want to sign you."

Has Price been a truly dominant pitcher since 2012? This seems way out there, even with Dumbro and Price having some history.

Good info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they make the playoffs a bunch the contract will not be an issue, true. Seems nuts to think Price will be a front-end guy for much longer though (assuming you consider him a front-end guy now).

Like I said earlier, I don't think he is a lock to opt out in three.

High mileage arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sources say BOS separated itself from other teams significantly in the David Price bidding -- which is what they had to do to get him.</p>? Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) <a href="
">December 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Cardinals supposed number two at substantially less.

I wonder if they outbid themselves.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...