David Price to the Red Sox per Heyman and Rotowire

[Vecmizer]

7 years $217 million

Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe reports that the Red Sox and David Price have agreed to a seven-year, $217 million contract.
New general manager Dave Dombrowski was dead-set on getting an ace this winter, and he's locked up the best one on the market to a record-setting contract. The deal just barely edges out Clayton Kershaw's contract for the highest ever for a pitcher and is the seventh-richest contract for any player in history. FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal says the deal also contains an opt-out clause after the third year. Guaranteeing any 30-year-old pitcher this much money is a big risk, but Price at the very least should give Boston a frontline stud for a few years.
Source: Boston GlobeDec 1 - 4:57 PM

[revo]

Yep. Too bad Cherington hamstrung them with Hanley and Sandoval, or else they'd probably be in on Grienke too.

[TS Garp]

This really makes the Kershaw deal look like a legitimate steal.

[Todd Zola]

It's apples and oranges -- the first year of Kershaw's deal was low since the Dodgers still had control for one more year. Plus, Kershaw can opt out after '18. The extra he may get replacing the final two years should bump it over Price's deal.

[Moonlight J]

Price's deal includes an opt out after three years.

He'll have to pitch his ass off next 3 years to take the chance of opting out & getting a raise on 4/124

[Sour Masher]

Most definitely. I think it's kinda doubtful that he'll opt out at age 33 with that much money on the table. Never know with this crazy inflating free agent market, though.

Yeah, I think this is a case where the opt out is better for the team than the player. It incentives Price to be at the top of his game for the next three years, and if he is, they luck out and get a 33 year old to leave what will likely b a bad deal on the back end for the Sox. If he pitches well enough to be able to do that, it will be a great 3 year deal for them.

[joncarlos]

Most definitely. I think it's kinda doubtful that he'll opt out at age 33 with that much money on the table. Never know with this crazy inflating free agent market, though.

I think it will mostly be about the total money. He won't be getting a significant raise on 32m AAV, but he might think he can opt out and get 6/160 instead of 4/124. [Checks math... that would mean he would have to think he could get at least 2/36 as a 37 year old, which, hey, maybe he can]

[TranaGreg]

$31M per year for ages 31-37. Sheesh. Maybe it will be worth it to the Sox is they win it all once or twice in the next few years, but that's really rolling the dice. Not many teams can take those odds.

I kind of have the feeling that we're coming to the end of the almost-quarter-of-a-billion-dollar contracts. A combination of them rarely paying off plus I really think that the cable/media companies' business models are based on something that is becoming less & less sustainable. I've cut my cable & only have internet, and I know a lot of other people that are doing the same ... and we don't go to the big companies to get internet access. They'll thrive for a few more years but in 5-10 years I think things will look very different.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, I'm surprised they haven't evolved out of the game as well, but as long as teams keep willing to put them out there, players will keep taking them. If I'm an owner, I'd be much more inclined to overpay for a short term deal than give a 6-10 year deal like we have seen. But of course, why would Price take a 3 year 100 million deal if he can get this one.

[Hornsby]

People are always shocked/complaining about the amount of money and the big contracts that players are getting. Right now, the players are getting somewhere in the high 30's percent of the money in baseball, where a decade or so ago, they were in the mid to high 50 percent bracket of revenue. So while there is more money in baseball than every before, the players are actually getting LESS of it. So I have no issue with any player getting anything that an owner wants to spend...they can certainly afford to do so.

If you want ticket prices, concessions, and the rest to go down, you only have one alternative, hurt the owners in the wallet. Don't go to the games, don't subscribe to the sports channels, urge your company NOT to buy a suite. But that's not going to happen in my lifetime...

[TranaGreg]

People are always shocked/complaining about the amount of money and the big contracts that players are getting. Right now, the players are getting somewhere in the high 30's percent of the money in baseball, where a decade or so ago, they were in the mid to high 50 percent bracket of revenue. So while there is more money in baseball than every before, the players are actually getting LESS of it. So I have no issue with any player getting anything that an owner wants to spend...they can certainly afford to do so.

If you want ticket prices, concessions, and the rest to go down, you only have one alternative, hurt the owners in the wallet. Don't go to the games, don't subscribe to the sports channels, urge your company NOT to buy a suite. But that's not going to happen in my lifetime...

FWIW, I agree completely. I wasn't complaining at all, tho I am wowed. I just don't think it can be sustained.

[Hornsby]

FWIW, I agree completely. I wasn't complaining at all, tho I am wowed. I just don't think it can be sustained.

That I agree with, for the reasons that you stated. But for now, unless your fans of old white guys with billions of dollars, I'm OK with the players getting all that they can...

[Sour Masher]

It isn't the money being spent that surprises me most. It is how it is being spent. Given how massive post arbitration contracts have become, I'm surprised more teams haven't tried to do what the Rays have been doing locking up arbitration players to long term deals relatively cheaply. Even if you are gambling on less proven talent, spending about the same amount to lock up 7 Longorias in their 20s makes more sense than locking up one super stud in his 30s.

I also am surprised many millions more are not being spent on scouting and player development, and on hiring and giving raises to the Mike Fasts of the world. My understanding is that a lot of the support personnel--especially those who work with minor leaguers--do not make a lot of money, and with all this money being made, why are not 1. ticket and concession prices going down and/or 2. all of these other important members of the organizations being paid substantially more? I realize teams won't lower prices to go to a game until fans force them to by not attending, but I would still like to see the latter happen in the meantime.

Also, you can build multiple state of the art baseball academies in a dozen Latin American countries, and right here in the US making sure that you develop hundreds of players for your organization and for the long term good for baseball for less money than one of these Arodesque deals. I know many teams do these things, but it seems like those are areas where some of this silly money could be spread. I wonder, as baseball continues to give 9 figure contracts out like candy if scouts are still living out of cars. Has the good fortune trickled down to the foundational employees that make an organization successful? Has it be invested in facilities and resources that ensure the long term success of baseball? I hope so, but I doubt it is being done to the extent it should.