Remember, 2015 was not part of the contract.
The guy started 32-33 starts all 4 years and went 64-40 4.33 (105 ERA+) and 4.16 FIP/ 1.23 WHIP.
The team went 81-50 in his starts.
Lackey went 47-43 3.92 but an ERA+ of 94 with FIP 3.99 and WHIP 1.36 and missed a full season. Figuring inflation, the money was about the same.
Nate went 22-15 after the signing 4.23 (108 ERA+) 3.88 FIP and 1.28 WHIP, but only 82 GS'd. (Adjust for 2020 and it's still much lower than Porcello)
I'm not disagreeing, because I do think they would not have called up Bello, had there not been so many injuries and fizzle outs by those they tried before him, but just a quick question- no malice intended:
Do you think every prospect who looks awful out of the gate was rushed?
The 6's were a little better, but if you combine the 6's & 7's, we can safely say our "large and long" deals have been an overall failure.
I can see why people didn't want us to sign Betts to 12 year, Bogey for 6-7 year, and now Devers to 8+ yrs.
Maybe a history lesson is in order.
The Sox won 99 games in 1978 and had to play a play-in game, while the KCR won 92 and waited for the winner. The NL teams won 95 LAD & 90 PHI, so the `best & second best teams had to play-in.
One of the worst injustices in MLB playoff structuring was back in 1972, a strike year, where they did not make sure all teams played the same amount of games. The Tigers played 1 more game that the Sox and ended up making the playoffs by 1/2 games (tied in the loss column.)
Now, compare that to two teams tied with 3rd and 4th best records in the AL having to play-in to the playoffs.
Stop crying.
We lost in '72 & '78. You lost in '22. That's history!
Very few teams survive a full season with just 3 capable RP'ers.
Yes, it goes beyond injuries, but using Houck and Whitlock as starters didn't help.
We need a deeper pen, and if we plan on starting Whitlock, next year, we need help in the high leverage area, too.
I think the Sox plan is to cycle your best chances every few years while trying to stay somewhat competitive, in between. It didn't work in 2022. I think they punted on 2020. 2012, 2014 & 2015 are like 2022: not planned on sucking, but in a rebuild mode without making the fans think they were.
Yes, done with Price. Already done with Pedey.
Sale looks like the only possible/likely "dead money," unless you think Story will be a bust.
Well, some might say bernes, too.
The only locked deals are (Lux Tax Dollars):
25.6 x 2 Sale
23.3 x 5 Story
9.38 x 1 Barnes
4.56 x 4 Whitlock
That's a tough one, because the Sox have to pay an $8M buyout or the full boat. So, if when they buy him out, he's a FA with $8M in his pocket + whatever he gets from his new team & contract..
This really shows how much at least one GM viewed Price's future and lack of value.
Including half his salary was a big part of the Dodger trade and the reduction of return value, IMO.
I'm not sure the Sox would have taken the SDP deal, unless they took the full Price contract, since Myer's was getting paid a lot, and the Sox wanted to not just reset, but also cut spending by a lot.
That's how I remembered it. The SDP offer was for only Betts.
The thing is, it seems to me, people expected us to get a younger Mookie Betts for 1 year of Betts.
At the time, I thought Dugo was going to turn out better than he has. He was 23 and had a decent .784 OPS playing in a big park w 44 XBHs in 443 ABs. He started out nicely, hitting .844 in 2020, but that was a short season. His total OPS with the Sox is actually worse (.771) than with LAD.
Had we stuck with Graterol or maybe taken Maeda, maybe it wouldn't look so bad, now, to some.
An example of the type of trade I think red is suggesting would be one year of Betts for 5 years of Dugo- a ML player. Not as good but the extra years was supposed to balance it out. (Of course, two prospects were included.)
They may end up near $80M by year's end, but yes.
I suppose, exceptions could be made for winning teams, like if you finish bottom 10, 3 years in a row, you have to spend to the floor..