Price to Red Sox

[SF11704]

7 years .... 217M ... on ESPN ...

 

[calsnowskier]

With an opt-out after 3 years.

Wow.

Maybe we dont want Greinke, if it will be this badly sided towards the player.

Opt outs need to be abolished, but they wont be. They put ALL the power in the players hands. If they suck, they have guaranteed money. If they are good, "F-U, team, I am out".

 

[Mays-Fan]

According to this, it down to us and the LAD's for Greinke:

Greinke Decision Likely This Week; Dodgers, Giants In Play

USA Today’s Bob Nightengale adds (Twitter link) that a Greinke decision is expected this week, noting that he, too, hears the Dodgers and Giants stand alone as the finalists.
​

And from what is imploding down in the City of Angels, I would think we at least have the edge.

Hey, it's not my money.

And if we got Greinke, it sends a clear signal we are playing to win. One that some elite OF's would I'm sure like to hear.

Zack has never been in a World Series, much less won one. And if LA didn't win one in the last 2-3 years, it ain't gonna happen there. So, Zack, the choice is really pretty clear...

 

[Hangman]

Don't believe the hype all we are doing is making the Dodgers spend more money on him.

 

[tzill]

Don't believe the hype all we are doing is making the Dodgers spend more money on him.

Ok, Eeyore.

 

[BroncoInCALI]

Sports radio has been interesting here in SoCal the last few days.....between Kobe announcing his retirement plans and rumors of the Giants being in on Greinke, it has been some entertaining stuff. Lol

 

[msgkings322]

With an opt-out after 3 years.

Wow.

Maybe we dont want Greinke, if it will be this badly sided towards the player.

Opt outs need to be abolished, but they wont be. They put ALL the power in the players hands. If they suck, they have guaranteed money. If they are good, "F-U, team, I am out".

Agree to a point. The Red Sox may just want his next 3 years production even if it's off the charts amazing, because it's the younger part of the deal. Some other team that wants to pay him $35 mil+ a year after that gets them off the hook for the last $120 mil+

Also, think of how much more $ Price could have gotten without that opt out in there. So the Red Sox perhaps did this to save money. Also, perhaps they figure even with an opt out getting a team to pay a 33 year old pitcher more than $30 mil per year wont be easy no matter how well Mr. Regular Season does

 

[msgkings322]

Don't believe the hype all we are doing is making the Dodgers spend more money on him.

Not such a bad thing if that's the case.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Another puzzle piece in the SF vs LA for Greinke battle:

Thanks to record payroll, Dodgers hit with record luxury tax bill - CBSSports.com

The Dodgers this past season ran what wound up as the highest payroll in MLB history: $298.3 million, according to documents obtained by USA Today. The current collective bargaining (CBA) agreement between MLB and the Players Association mandates that payrolls above a certain threshold will be subject to a luxury tax. In the language of the CBA, it's known as the "competitive balance tax," and here's a little about said tax ...


As you may have already gleaned, the Dodgers in 2015 were clear of the threshold by more than $100 million, so, yes, they'll be getting dinged. You get dinged based on how far you exceed the threshold in a given year and whether you broke the threshold in prior years. As Bob Nightengale reports, the Dodgers' penalty for 2015 adds up to $43 million, which is a record. So, yes, that's a $43 million bill for the privilege of running up a $298.3 million bill.

As for 2016, we've just dipped our toes into the offseason, and the Dodgers already have more than $150 million committed in player salaries. Know who can afford such a thing? The Dodgers, for one.

The three other teams to cross the tax threshold in 2015 were the Yankees, Red Sox, and Giants.
​

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The tax % gets higher each year the team is over. Next year the tax for LA is 40% of the overage, and 50% after that. This has to play a factor in the LAD's decision re Greinke. They laid out a ton of money for payroll, and they failed to win the WS again.

We shall soon see.

 

[MarcoPolo]

With an opt-out after 3 years.

Wow.

Maybe we dont want Greinke, if it will be this badly sided towards the player.

Opt outs need to be abolished, but they wont be. They put ALL the power in the players hands. If they suck, they have guaranteed money. If they are good, "F-U, team, I am out".

{very, VERY tongue-in-cheek}
No, we wouldn't want to stop the god-given right of a pro sports player the right to maximize his earnings! I mean, gosh guys, have YOU ever given money to your employer when you could get more??

{the very argument someone used when I called Greinke a greedy prick last month}

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hey, it's not my money.

That sort of attitude (see underlined above) makes me both laugh and cry. For any fan who goes to games, it *IS* your money. It raises the cost of the tickets, the beer, the souvenir crap, the dogs, etc. It may not be YOUR money, but it sure as shit is MINE (I go to games).

 

[calsnowskier]

{very, VERY tongue-in-cheek}
No, we wouldn't want to stop the god-given right of a pro sports player the right to maximize his earnings! I mean, gosh guys, have YOU ever given money to your employer when you could get more??

{the very argument someone used when I called Greinke a greedy prick last month}

My argument, and I stand by it. And I am not claiming Price is a greedy prick for signing the contract. He is (or more likely, his agent is) a savvy businessman.

Doesnt mean, in a closed environment, rules cant be tweaked to make things more consistent with common sense.

 

[calsnowskier]

That sort of attitude (see underlined above) makes me both laugh and cry. For any fan who goes to games, it *IS* your money. It raises the cost of the tickets, the beer, the souvenir crap, the dogs, etc. It may not be YOUR money, but it sure as shit is MINE (I go to games).

Disagree 100%.

Are you saying that the team would lower prices if they didnt have to pay Pence 18M or Posey 20M?

The prices are insanely high BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL PAY IT. Pure and simple.

 

[tzill]

Disagree 100%.

Are you saying that the team would lower prices if they didnt have to pay Pence 18M or Posey 20M?

The prices are insanely high BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL PAY IT. Pure and simple.

This. Simple economic definition of "worth."

Salaries don't drive prices in baseball, they follow demand. If we will spend $12 on a beer, the team is stupid not to charge it. Once the team receives it, the players are stupid not to get their cut.

Now, if everyone decided "screw it, baseball is too effing expensive" prices would drop and salaries would come down.

This is not going to happen.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That sort of attitude (see underlined above) makes me both laugh and cry. For any fan who goes to games, it *IS* your money. It raises the cost of the tickets, the beer, the souvenir crap, the dogs, etc. It may not be YOUR money, but it sure as shit is MINE (I go to games).

My argument, and I stand by it. And I am not claiming Price is a greedy prick for signing the contract. He is (or more likely, his agent is) a savvy businessman.

Doesnt mean, in a closed environment, rules cant be tweaked to make things more consistent with common sense.

I actually have walked away from money. I lowered my payout (but the company didn't get it). At the time I was managing an extremely smart engineering team who had done wonders over the past year, and it was bonus time. For anybody who has worked in a large company, you know how it goes : "here's your bonus envelope {how much money you can give out} - spend it wisely". I told my boss it was BS *this year*, and cited all of the amazing stuff accomplished over the past 12 months: beating schedules, patents filed, 70-hour weeks, kick-ass software, genius ideas for gen2 already in planning stages - they *deserved* it. He said it was out of his hands. I went to HIS boss and said the same things - he said "that's just the way it works". I went to the VP of the division and said the same things, and I added "there has GOT to be a discretionary fund for situations like this - and if there isn't there SHOULD be". He said nope. I had never actually seen a guy's eyebrows go up in surprise before, but when I said "then damn it, take X 1000$ out of whatever MY bonus is going to be and let me give it to my guys, because they sacrificed family time and worked their asses off for this company, and I'm not going to fuck them for it" the VP was shocked. Fucking greedy pricks. Yes, I had options out the ass so I didn't care that much if I got $8K less that year. At least the year AFTER I got "discretionary bonus funds" - I had to go back to the VP, but the argument "TWO years of kick ass performance deserves a hefty reward - or do you want them to look for work at another company after the reviews this product is getting?" seemed to do the trick.

 

[calsnowskier]

I actually have walked away from money. I lowered my payout (but the company didn't get it). At the time I was managing an extremely smart engineering team who had done wonders over the past year, and it was bonus time. For anybody who has worked in a large company, you know how it goes : "here's your bonus envelope {how much money you can give out} - spend it wisely". I told my boss it was BS *this year*, and cited all of the amazing stuff accomplished over the past 12 months: beating schedules, patents filed, 70-hour weeks, kick-ass software, genius ideas for gen2 already in planning stages - they *deserved* it. He said it was out of his hands. I went to HIS boss and said the same things - he said "that's just the way it works". I went to the VP of the division and said the same things, and I added "there has GOT to be a discretionary fund for situations like this - and if there isn't there SHOULD be". He said nope. I had never actually seen a guy's eyebrows go up in surprise before, but when I said "then damn it, take X 1000$ out of whatever MY bonus is going to be and let me give it to my guys, because they sacrificed family time and worked their asses off for this company, and I'm not going to fuck them for it" the VP was shocked. Fucking greedy pricks. Yes, I had options out the ass so I didn't care that much if I got $8K less that year. At least the year AFTER I got "discretionary bonus funds" - I had to go back to the VP, but the argument "TWO years of kick ass performance deserves a hefty reward - or do you want them to look for work at another company after the reviews this product is getting?" seemed to do the trick.

Apples. Meet oranges.

 

[MarcoPolo]

PS : I was 'free to pursue opportunities elsewhere' about 16 months after the second 'discretionary bonus' discussion - the VP didn't appreciate being told he could either reward my guys or eventually lose them. One year later, about 60% of my old team was working with me at my new employer.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Apples. Meet oranges.

If the question was "how many of YOU have walked away from money from your employer" (and I think that was one of the questions), then it is dead-on.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Apples. Meet oranges.

Of course, the other response is "yes, I'm not a fucking greedy prick".

 

[MarcoPolo]

And "Apples vs. Oranges" is rather amusing to me. Think about it ...