The David Price It's Gonna Hai Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

Weeks after Zach Grienke did that exact thing.

[InternetApex]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

Weeks after Zach Grienke did that exact thing.

I'm thinking we're at peak Internet Chuck.

[SKO]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

Weeks after Zach Grienke did that exact thing.

I'm thinking we're at peak Internet Chuck.

I hate to defend Chuck, but I think he's referring to any opt outs handed out this offseason? He made a fairly decent point that salaries may actually go down in the future when the TV rights bubble bursts and the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox can't bank on billion dollar media deals to bankroll their splurges, so in three years David Price may take stock of the market and realize he actually won't get more than $31 mildo a year if he opts out and tries to hit the market again. Greinke doing it this year is irrelevant.

[CT III]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

Weeks after Zach Grienke did that exact thing.

I'm thinking we're at peak Internet Chuck.

I hate to defend Chuck, but I think he's referring to any opt outs handed out this offseason? He made a fairly decent point that salaries may actually go down in the future when the TV rights bubble bursts and the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox can't bank on billion dollar media deals to bankroll their splurges, so in three years David Price may take stock of the market and realize he actually won't get more than $31 mildo a year if he opts out and tries to hit the market again. Greinke doing it this year is irrelevant.

Eh, I'll believe that salaries will go down when I see it.  And even if salaries do start to get squeezed, either via teams not being able to pay or a scorched earth lockout/salary cap implementation, it's generally not the guys on top whose contracts get smaller, it's the mid-level vets.

[thehawk]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

[SKO]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

What is upsetting is the Cardinals offered someone a 180 million dollar deal. If their new TV deal leads them spending like a major market team that is going to suck.

[PenFoe]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

What is upsetting is the Cardinals offered someone a 180 million dollar deal. If their new TV deal leads them spending like a major market team that is going to suck.

What is further upsetting is that they can now afford to offer $180MM to Heyward.

[Oleg]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

I wanted The Cubs to offer Price 7 years and 218MM.  I would have been fine with The Cubs getting Price.

[Canadouche]

I feel that the Red Sox and Yankees are the only teams that can throw ridiculous piles of cash at pitchers and absorb the losses once they start getting hurt/losing viability. It would be nice if the Cubs were also one of those teams, and debateably they could afford to be, but it's really hard to justify investing that kind of money in a pitcher who will only be worth it for perhaps half of the contract.

but it's really hard to justify investing that kind of money in a pitcher who will only be worth it for perhaps half of the contract.

ahem

they could afford to be

Oh wow look I justified it

I said it's debatable that they could afford to be a team that can afford to absorb losses once expensive players turn mediocre. What exactly did I justify?

[SKO]

I feel that the Red Sox and Yankees are the only teams that can throw ridiculous piles of cash at pitchers and absorb the losses once they start getting hurt/losing viability. It would be nice if the Cubs were also one of those teams, and debateably they could afford to be, but it's really hard to justify investing that kind of money in a pitcher who will only be worth it for perhaps half of the contract.

but it's really hard to justify investing that kind of money in a pitcher who will only be worth it for perhaps half of the contract.

ahem

they could afford to be

Oh wow look I justified it

I said it's debatable that they could afford to be a team that can afford to absorb losses once expensive players turn mediocre. What exactly did I justify?

You didn't justify it, I was using your words to justify it. It's not hard to justify at all if they can afford it.

[Quality Start Machine]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

What is upsetting is the Cardinals offered someone a 180 million dollar deal. If their new TV deal leads them spending like a major market team that is going to suck.

What is further upsetting is that they can now afford to offer $180MM to Heyward.

Is that before or after they sign Chris Davis?

[thehawk]

just saw the following http://deadspin.com/is-david-price-worth-it-1745671078?trending_test_two_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_two_c

With an interesting tidbit:

Boston needed an ace, and they needed one now: given an ultimatum by Zack Grienke, who they were also negotiating with, the Red Sox blew Price away with an offer that was reportedly worth at least $30 million more than what the Cardinals, Price's second-place suitor, were offering.

Think the Cubs may had dodged one there.

I wanted The Cubs to offer Price 7 years and 218MM.  I would have been fine with The Cubs getting Price.

Me too, but I certainly did not want to see the Cards have him for the next [chuck] 3 to [/chuck] 7 years

[Chuck to Chuck]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the "opt-outs are terrible for the team" thing. What are the chances that Price blows out his elbow or his shoulder, or suddenly becomes terrible, over the next 3 years? Multiply that probability - which I'd argue is small - times the 4 years at the back end, and that's the risk the Red Sox are taking on. Let's say that probability is 20% - that's about a $25 M risk.

In return for taking on that risk, they get a top 5 pitcher on a 3 year, $90 M deal with the likely ability to cut bait right around the time he'll probably start to decline.

You're taking on 100% of the negative risk (injuries, ineffectiveness, etc.) with your upside being that he pitches well enough to leave you after three years.

Basically, the worst outcome is disastrous, the best outcome is fairly pleasant.

I'm guessing none of these opt outs are ever executed. The YES network cancellation, the 7 million subscribers gone from ESPN, the Dodgers not on TV and I'm thinking we're at the peak for media rights.  After this, it's all on pay-per-view.

Weeks after Zach Grienke did that exact thing.

Let me rephrase: I'm guessing none of these opt outs signed this offseason for seasons 3 or more years in the future are ever executed.