Bosox got Sale.
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
No doubt they sign and draft well
but it also seems like the luxury tax has impacted their thinking here a bit. They are willing to use their prospects right now to get cost controlled very good players that let them stay under the tax. It will be interesting to see if other teams make moves like this
but it also seems like the luxury tax has impacted their thinking here a bit. They are willing to use their prospects right now to get cost controlled very good players that let them stay under the tax. It will be interesting to see if other teams make moves like this
I cannot believe how cheap Sale's contract is. He choked signing that thing.
Chris Sale went 6-0 with a 1.55 ERA and 0.82 WHIP in 6 starts against NYY, TOR, TB & BAL last season. https://t.co/CnmQg14llC
Those options are so disastrous for him - giving up two years of free agency like that for only 2 M total of downside was crazy when you were already getting a contract that set you for life
He signed that extension after he had already had a stud year with excellent peripherals - a year that was worth over 25 M a year on the free market even in March 2013 when he signed the deal. I have no clue what his agent was doing. The options needed to be much higher than the 2017 contract amount - if the options were 17 M / 21 M it wouldn't look so bad.
It's like the reverse Mark Melancon - the upside in the contract sat with the team, not the player. LOL at paying Melancon $34 M over 2 years with him having an option to opt in to $28 M more over the next two years. He's going to be 32 by the first time he throws a pitch under the deal!
He signed that extension after he had already had a stud year with excellent peripherals - a year that was worth over 25 M a year on the free market even in March 2013 when he signed the deal. I have no clue what his agent was doing. The options needed to be much higher than the 2017 contract amount - if the options were 17 M / 21 M it wouldn't look so bad.
It's like the reverse Mark Melancon - the upside in the contract sat with the team, not the player. LOL at paying Melancon $34 M over 2 years with him having an option to opt in to $28 M more over the next two years. He's going to be 32 by the first time he throws a pitch under the deal!
Last edited:
I'm starting to get the feeling the Birds are going to have another poor off season where they tell us we tried but just couldn't get nothing done. Another winter of Leake and Gyryko is not going to help us catch the Giants, Dodgers, Nats, Mets, or Cubs. May need the commisioner to add another wild card team.Sure hope they do something big but I just don't think it is in their DNA.
I get it, but I'm just not sure what's out there. Hard to argue with the platform of continued competitive success they've laid out the last 15+ seasons. I appreciate the fact they don't just sign someone (Upton for example) just because there's a need and that player is the best fill for the need, regardless if it's a decent player or upgrade. I would like to see them try to move some pitching depth (and maybe dangle a Bader) for OF help in the trade market, but truthfully there just isn't much available in FA market.
Dombrowski did this same sort of thing when he was with the Tigers, though. How did that work out for them long term? They're one of the oldest teams in the majors and very little in terms of top prospects. We'll see what happens once their young talent starts reaching free agency and they don't have anyone in the system to replace them.
Boston just has absurd resources.
They are also paying $31 million to the White Sox for the Cubans salary.
Good point. They're flush with cash. Dedicated, large market that just prints money for them. Add in that they've scouted and drafted well and it's just almost not fair.
They have a very good core of young players plus a few key guys who are the right age to play for win now. The Yanks are weaker, Toronto may lose a bat, and they aren't in the same league as the Cubs. Why shouldn't they be going all in?
Don't think so. Still against the Red Sox luxury cap. They are really starting to hammer down on someone like the Dodgers just throwing cash around because they can, so I'll be interested to see how that changes rising contracts if teams want to avoid that 100% tax on overages
I'm just not of the opinion that you trade 2 of your top pitching prospects and the guy considered the best prospect in baseball for one guy. That's just me. I understand the "win now" sentiment, but that was an awfully steep price to pay for 1 player. I do agree that this should make them the hands down favorite in the East, now.
Prospects get hurt, especially pitchers, and Sale is underpaid by about $20 M a year. You are going to pay through the nose for that.
You probably only had to trade one of them if Sale had a market value contract. Basically, not only did they get Sale, but they got Sale + the ability to spend 2/3rds of his market value on another stud. That's why he was worth two prospects.
It's not that I don't understand the rationale. I just wouldn't go that far. I can see a team like Boston doing so when they've got so much $$$ and can spend as they please on the open market when necessary to fill a hole. However, I'm glad the Cardinals don't typically operate this way and potentially mortgage the future for 1 guy.
Everyone has a budget. If a guy should cost you $30 M and instead costs you $12 M, then he is worth more in a trade. Even big market teams have a limit on what they will spend. There is a reason Boston loves having Jackie Bradley, Xander Bogaerts, etc.
Boston is saying hey, we spent a ton of money in the last two offseasons on Price and Sandoval (~50 M a year). We aren't in a position to dump another $30+ M into this year's FA class. Instead, we will turn some prospects into a player with an excellent contract.
