David Price Signs 7 year deal with Red Sox

[Pulk_Pull]

i'd rather it be the red sox... they are f***ed now

 

Nah, Price is one of the top free agents for a reason. I'd of rather watched the BoSox hand over significant money to Cueto or Zimmerman than Price on sheer talent alone. Yeah we may end up reaping the rewards of lost value in 3-4 years, but this is our chance to contend, and facing Price 3-4 times a year is gonna suck.

 

Also, nice call by MLBTR (aside from the team)... http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html

[jaysfan2014]

They don't need anything else. 1-6 is very solid, and traditional.

 

Price

Buchholz

Porcello

Rodriguez

Miley

Kelly

 

They also have a robust offense, a couple of elite relievers, and minor league depth.

 

Nothing really left for them to do except try to unload the bad Hanley/Panda contracts if they can.

 

Minor league depth--no they don't. They're thin at nearly every position in the high minors except 1B, and it's possible Owens or Johnson may get moved for more help for the MLB roster. And the bullpen has not been improved enough--they need more than Kimbrel to even think of contention, as their bullpen was a major issue last season. And as for that robust offense.. it will depend on David Ortiz avoiding regression, and Bradley/Castillo actually hitting.

[Frenchsoup]

They don't need anything else. 1-7 is very solid, and traditional.

 

Price

Buchholz

Porcello

Rodriguez

Miley

Kelly/Owens/Johnson

 

They also have a robust offense, a couple of elite relievers, and minor league depth.

 

Nothing really left for them to do except try to unload the bad Hanley/Panda contracts if they can.

 

If i was them i would look hard at Lucroy.

[Key22]

Yes, we do need another starter, and agreed on 2017-18. But Boston is not guaranteed to improve-- we all saw what happened with the HanRam/Sandoval deals. Yes, Betts and Bogaerts should get better.. not so on Holt, as he is no more than a bench player, as he does not play well as a regular.

 

The Red Sox have a huge wealth of prospects to trade - for example they are in good position to offer a package to Cleveland and land a Carlos Carasco or make a trade with Cincinnati to add Chapman and have the best bullpen in baseball.

 

They can do a lot of things - that Jays have almost zero minor league talent to trade (and seem unwilling anyway) and if they trade bats they run the risk of losing the one real strength that they have.

 

I would like to see our Jays hitters and their career numbers off of Price - or perhaps just over the last say two years. Just to see what we're in for. And Price is mainly about the fastball - his secondary offerings aren't nearly as strong and if he loses some mph on the fastball - I wonder how effective he will remain.

[dineke]

All joking aside, the money these guys make really gets to me sometimes. Someone I know very well is a PhD, and an assistant professor. Her area of expertise is in a particular type of therapy for people with a specific disorder that leads to multiple tumors, and usually cancer. She is quite literally the foremost expert in the world in this area. She is the only person in the world who specializes in children with this disorder. She has all sorts of accolades and recognition from her peers. She currently makes about $70,000/year. Now, she is still young by academic standards, and she doesn't have tenure yet. Eventually, she will probably be making something with 6 figures, but that will take some time. Now, I realize the economic differences between professional baseball and academia; I'm not naive. It just bugs me sometimes, and brings up certain ethical question about our society.

 

lol

[BTS]

The Red Sox have a huge wealth of prospects to trade - for example they are in good position to offer a package to Cleveland and land a Carlos Carasco or make a trade with Cincinnati to add Chapman and have the best bullpen in baseball.

 

They can do a lot of things - that Jays have almost zero minor league talent to trade (and seem unwilling anyway) and if they trade bats they run the risk of losing the one real strength that they have.

 

I would like to see our Jays hitters and their career numbers off of Price - or perhaps just over the last say two years. Just to see what we're in for. And Price is mainly about the fastball - his secondary offerings aren't nearly as strong and if he loses some mph on the fastball - I wonder how effective he will remain.

 

Price is a lefty with great command. I think he'll be reasonably effective even if he loses a few mph on his fastball. He won't be a 30M arm, but he should still be good. The real risk is injury.

[Captain Adama]

I had figured/hoped this thread would be a sanctuary from all the dumbass facebook Jays fans.

 

Why was I so naive?

[Krylian]

So you would have given him that colossal contract that will kill you in about 2-3 years. Because i am guessing he is not opting out unless he breaks some records.

 

Hell no.

 

My comment is more towards not building on the momentum of 2015. It doesn't have to be Price or Greinke... But definitely more than Chavez and Happ.

 

I know, it's only December 1st... But i still maintain that no game changers will be added... And the payroll will stay as is.

[King]

[GD]

Why would you laugh at a story about someone who helps children with cancer?

 

I believe this post is what you might call "divisive." It's also an awful stretch of the truth, that clearly isn't what he was laughing at and you should probably feel bad for posting that

[dineke]

Why would you laugh at a story about someone who helps children with cancer?

 

Yes I was laughing at that.

[Pulk_Pull]

Blue Jays offseason just getting all those Toronto sports fans ready for the Raptors upcoming offseason where they will fail to land a big fish as well.

[dineke]

Blue Jays offseason just getting all those Toronto sports fans ready for the Raptors upcoming offseason where they will fail to land a big fish as well.

 

The raptors are probably going to keep their star... unfortunately.

[Candy Maldonado]

traitor

[Terminator]

I think probably.

 

I think they probably will be too. They probably have more up their sleeve in addition to the moves already made.

 

So while I don't really fear this Price-to-the-Sox signing, 2016 is a big year for the Jays so Price signing with them is bad news short term. Hopefully we can do enough this offseason to stay out in front of them.

[Pulk_Pull]

The raptors are probably going to keep their star... unfortunately.

 

"Star" in big quotations

[admin]

You're right it's not too bad at all. I just have a feeling they won't be satisfied with just that and will do something else.

 

They don't need anything else. 1-7 is very solid, and traditional.

 

Price

Buchholz

Porcello

Rodriguez

Miley

Kelly/Owens/Johnson

 

They also have a robust offense, a couple of elite relievers, and minor league depth.

 

Nothing really left for them to do except try to unload the bad Hanley/Panda contracts if they can.

[Candide]

All joking aside, the money these guys make really gets to me sometimes. Someone I know very well is a PhD, and an assistant professor. Her area of expertise is in a particular type of therapy for people with a specific disorder that leads to multiple tumors, and usually cancer. She is quite literally the foremost expert in the world in this area. She is the only person in the world who specializes in children with this disorder. She has all sorts of accolades and recognition from her peers. She currently makes about $70,000/year. Now, she is still young by academic standards, and she doesn't have tenure yet. Eventually, she will probably be making something with 6 figures, but that will take some time. Now, I realize the economic differences between professional baseball and academia; I'm not naive. It just bugs me sometimes, and brings up certain ethical question about our society.

 

that's a huge issue in itself, and opponents of your argument will say that it's all about market economics and supply-and-demand. that's true, provided that you subscribe to the principles of our current economic structure and accept all of the social/political/economic outcomes from which this configuration is derived. your friend's example is something that hits very close to home and I admit to having taken the cop-out/less noble cause of the soulless corporate life rather than pursuing my true passion of a PhD due to the low (and delayed) remuneration associated with it. I finished my masters degree at a top school in the US but stopped after that about 8 years ago. Some of my friends who ended up doing pursuing their PhDs are now doing their second post-doc at places like MIT, Harvard, and Stanford and make about a sixth the amount of money I do, and my current salary in London is obviously very comfortable for a guy in his early 30s, but by no means sufficient to buy property in the city for at least another 4-5 years. And most of my friends and colleagues are in the same position, where those who do manage to own property do so via inheritance/support from family or achieving it via a dual-income based mortgage.

 

I readily acknowledge that my peers' contributions to society and life vastly exceed my own, which consists of helping a global corporation become more profitable. Opponents of your argument, aside from the market economics perspective, will say that that is the cost of 'doing what you love' and that it's subjective whether their research on a cure for alzheimers, a critique of formalism in Soviet literature, or the historical sociology of revolutionary france really adds any more value to our society than what I'm doing - I have no rebuttal for that. I just think that individuals who choose to pursue such an avenue should have the right to make more than $30,000 a year which is barely sufficient to sustain a reasonable livelihood..

[BTS]

that's a huge issue in itself, and opponents of your argument will say that it's all about market economics and supply-and-demand. that's true, provided that you subscribe to the principles of our current economic structure and accept all of the social/political/economic outcomes from which this configuration is derived. your friend's example is something that hits very close to home and I admit to having taken the cop-out/less noble cause of the soulless corporate life rather than pursuing my true passion of a PhD due to the low (and delayed) remuneration associated with it. I finished my masters degree at a top school in the US but stopped after that about 8 years ago. Some of my friends who ended up doing pursuing their PhDs are now doing their second post-doc at places like MIT, Harvard, and Stanford and make about a sixth the amount of money I do, and my current salary in London is obviously very comfortable for a guy in his early 30s, but by no means sufficient to buy property in the city for at least another 4-5 years. And most of my friends and colleagues are in the same position, where those who do manage to own property do so via inheritance/support from family or achieving it via a dual-income based mortgage.

 

I readily acknowledge that my peers' contributions to society and life vastly exceed my own, which consists of helping a global corporation become more profitable. Opponents of your argument, aside from the market economics perspective, will say that that is the cost of 'doing what you love' and that it's subjective whether their research on a cure for alzheimers, a critique of formalism in Soviet literature, or the historical sociology of revolutionary france really adds any more value to our society than what I'm doing - I have no rebuttal for that. I just think that individuals who choose to pursue such an avenue should have the right to make more than $30,000 a year which is barely sufficient to sustain a reasonable livelihood..

 

This guy makes 180K/year.

[crmr]

that's a huge issue in itself, and opponents of your argument will say that it's all about market economics and supply-and-demand. that's true, provided that you subscribe to the principles of our current economic structure and accept all of the social/political/economic outcomes from which this configuration is derived. your friend's example is something that hits very close to home and I admit to having taken the cop-out/less noble cause of the soulless corporate life rather than pursuing my true passion of a PhD due to the low (and delayed) remuneration associated with it. I finished my masters degree at a top school in the US but stopped after that about 8 years ago. Some of my friends who ended up doing pursuing their PhDs are now doing their second post-doc at places like MIT, Harvard, and Stanford and make about a sixth the amount of money I do, and my current salary in London is obviously very comfortable for a guy in his early 30s, but by no means sufficient to buy property in the city for at least another 4-5 years. And most of my friends and colleagues are in the same position, where those who do manage to own property do so via inheritance/support from family or achieving it via a dual-income based mortgage.

 

I readily acknowledge that my peers' contributions to society and life vastly exceed my own, which consists of helping a global corporation become more profitable. Opponents of your argument, aside from the market economics perspective, will say that that is the cost of 'doing what you love' and that it's subjective whether their research on a cure for alzheimers, a critique of formalism in Soviet literature, or the historical sociology of revolutionary france really adds any more value to our society than what I'm doing - I have no rebuttal for that. I just think that individuals who choose to pursue such an avenue should have the right to make more than $30,000 a year which is barely sufficient to sustain a reasonable livelihood..

 

Except if they're doing post docs in anything relevant (i.e. contributing to society in a notable way - pretty much exclude fields falling under 'the arts') at MIT, Stanford etc they will earn a much higher salary than $30,000 year.

 

Also, to pretend entertainers don't contribute to society is highly inaccurate

[crmr]

This guy makes 180K/year.

 

But lives in London UK

[Pulk_Pull]

The money argument gets thrown out the door when the majority of 'professional' baseball players barely make ends-meat while travelling in the minor leagues. Just like any industry, there are the few that will profit greatly and the majority will earn significantly less.

 

Saying baseball players make too much is just as naive as saying actors make too much when the majority of actors have to work 2-3 jobs to earn room and board outside of the bit roles they get on a random cop drama.

[CJ-Freeway]

All joking aside, the money these guys make really gets to me sometimes. Someone I know very well is a PhD, and an assistant professor. Her area of expertise is in a particular type of therapy for people with a specific disorder that leads to multiple tumors, and usually cancer. She is quite literally the foremost expert in the world in this area. She is the only person in the world who specializes in children with this disorder. She has all sorts of accolades and recognition from her peers. She currently makes about $70,000/year. Now, she is still young by academic standards, and she doesn't have tenure yet. Eventually, she will probably be making something with 6 figures, but that will take some time. Now, I realize the economic differences between professional baseball and academia; I'm not naive. It just bugs me sometimes, and brings up certain ethical question about our society.

 

Price > Your friend

[Candide]

Except if they're doing post docs in anything relevant (i.e. contributing to society in a notable way - pretty much exclude fields falling under 'the arts') at MIT, Stanford etc they will earn a much higher salary than $30,000 year.

 

Also, to pretend entertainers don't contribute to society is highly inaccurate

 

1) that's to say that 'the arts' is irrelevant. art, literature, and humanities in general is what enriches our lives and gives meaning to it, in the same way that entertainment does (i.e sports).

 

2) notice how i never commented anything about how entertainers don't contribute to society? i also didn't comment on whether i deemed the athletes of sports salaries to be excessive, but rather how individuals with a high level of education often receive remuneration that's well below the average salary wage and how i believe that that is unfair to them. i don't see how your two points relate to my previous post other than your own inferences.

[Candide]

But lives in London UK

 

precisely.

 

I probably should have mentioned that - $180,000 in London is not the same as Toronto as the cost of living is probably 1.5 times greater and property prices about 4 times higher. My friends who are doing their post-docs in the US at top schools are on $30,000-40,000 USD stipends/salaries. Those in the sciences have slightly higher amounts, around $50,000 USD. And say what you will about their future earning potential, but that is predicated on landing tenureship at a top research university, which is not only a huge commitment in terms of time (+7 years), but also extremely competitive.

[GoJays]

If the Canadian dollar stays the same that contract is 288 million.

[Krylian]

If brainers could throw the ball like Price they'd be making $31m a year too. People with phD's are a dime a dozen. There are maybe 5 people on that planet that can do what David Price does... That's why he makes what he does.

[crmr]

1) that's to say that 'the arts' is irrelevant. art, literature, and humanities in general is what enriches our lives and gives meaning to it, in the same way that entertainment does (i.e sports).

 

2) notice how i never commented anything about how entertainers don't contribute to society? i also didn't comment on whether i deemed the athletes of sports salaries to be excessive, but rather how individuals with a high level of education often receive remuneration that's well below the average salary wage and how i believe that that is unfair to them. i don't see how your two points relate to my previous post other than your own inferences.

 

My part about entertainers was more in reply to the guy you replied to.

 

The arts at the Phd level is largely an irrelevant contribution to society, but the arts themselves are in the same direction as sports. My point was largely to say that while your post doc friends are not making much money now, if they are indeed doing post docs at the named institutions, they will do very well for themselves so long as they decided to pursue a field which people consider useful (which is, generally speaking, anything but the arts)

[RealAccountant]

Jays did not offer Price a contact

[saskjayfan]

If the Canadian dollar stays the same that contract is 288 million.

 

that's not entirely true. Not all the Jays revenues are in Canadian dollars.