Jump to content

Aaron Bummer extended 5 years/16M (plus two options)


Kyyle23

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I don't get the need to do this and to me it speaks to the paucity of funds expected going forward.  It's a needless commitment in hopes of saving what, 10 million at most if he's some stud setup guy?

$10 million savings (per your statement)  for paying $15 million up front, you don't find 40% savings that big a deal? 

Even if the savings were $5 million, that's 25%.  Still a sold deal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

How do those moves have anything to do with this one?  Those moves sucked.  This one imo isn't great either.  Doesn't suck, but it's not a on the face great move either.

I was showing how $13 million, or even $16 million isn’t all that much money...  but it sure can be spent a lot more wisely.  Giving it to two old garbage vets is a bad idea but spending it on many years of control for a good young reliever who could become a top closer is a good idea.

Edited by Moan4Yoan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

He is a LHP with a league average K rate. How many successful closers the last 30 years can you say that about? John Franco off the top of my head is one. I can’t think of  another.  So the reality is he is going to be a 7th or 8th inning guy. Paying him through his arb years for this to be a bargain is going to mean he was awesome.

Alex Colome has a lower K-rate than Aaron Bummer and he is a closer.. I forget for which team though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

true, if he's a closer.  If he's just a solid setup what's the best case savings?  I dunno, I'm not saying it's a bad move or good one.  I think it's an unnecessary move.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/arbitration/relief-pitcher/

depends on health and what solid means. And who knows how arb progresses for next five years, this hedges against that. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mqr said:

Certainly not unwelcome but locking up a reliever for 7 years seems unnecessary?

Pretty soon the best relievers will get $15M a yr. if one hasn't already.

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Totally unnecessary.

Maybe so but every time they lock someone up and they remain good it makes them so much more valuable than just the contract value. They've also had very good luck with the players they have locked up so far so they're working from a surplus. Sooner or later one will go bad but thats not nearly as crippling as a $300M contract going bad. $29M is less than 1 yr of Mookie Betts next contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

Maybe less. And if he gets hurt, a lot less. This insignificant sum he supposedly is guaranteed is probably less than the savings if he was tremendous the next 5 seasons going through arb, which would then make the savings also insignificant.

This isn't true. Bummer was going to get 4 arbitration years and the final one as a super 2 player. Arbitrators still overrate saves and relievers in general. They probably saved here and set up their former 19th rounder for life while giving the org cost certainty. It's fine 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

I just laugh sometimes at Sox Nation.   When they take care of their of their own: "This is so unnecessary."      Then on the other side :  "Why did they stop spending money and are not looking for patchwork fillers?"

 

 

Yea me too I laugh that you can describe a whole nation like one entity. The Bummer move is good and so would be signing another  3WAR worth of players for less than $5M . Both are good value plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This isn't true. Bummer was going to get 4 arbitration years and the final one as a super 2 player. Arbitrators still overrate saves and relievers in general. They probably saved here and set up their former 19th rounder for life while giving the org cost certainty. It's fine 

They saved if everything goes perfectly and Bummer becomes a lockdown closer on a contender. But he grabs his elbow in June, it screws up 2 arb years and probably eliminates him from ever being the closer. I think it was at least a year premature. Let’s see if he can repeat his performance. The Sox are no strangers to having elite LH relievers.Damaso Marte for a year or two was probably the best LH reliever in the AL. Then he fell apart. Matt Thornton was maybe the best 8th inning lefty in baseball. Remember when they tried to hand him the 9th?

Bummer was terrific last year. But aren’t relievers supposed to be inconsistent from year to year? What makes him different? 2017 and 2018 gave no indication he was anything special. He didn’t make the 2019 team out of spring training. I didn’t see anyone calling for an Aaron Bummer extension anywhere. Overall, it’s not a lot of money. But it is unnecessarily spent money, just like the money for Alonzo and Jay, and Keppinger, and Teahan. The list goes on and on. maybe he is an exception. I hope he is as great as is apparently expected. I just have my doubts giving non stars 5 year extensions when they are under control for 5 years and have 1 more career save than me. But I do congratulate him. Being guaranteed $16 million at his age is life changing. 

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony said:

So that means they shouldn’t do it? 
 

Maybe, just maybe the Sox are working off a little more data than you have. The FO has made a lot errors, but signing their own to early deals really hasn’t hurt them, and in fact in the case of Quintana and Sale, actually dramatically helped their overall value. 

This is the second post comparing an Aaron Bummer extension with a Sale and Q extension. It is ridiculous it was mentioned once. I really doubt Bummers value rose with this extension considering he had 5 years of control left anyway. This is the largest extension ever given to a pre-arb non closer in MLB history, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tony said:

That’s cute attempt at a dig, but it doesn’t even make sense in this regard. 
 

As mentioned previously, by multiple people, the Sox Front Office has found a great deal of success by extending their young players early. I’m sure you’ll try and argue it, but you’ll be wrong, again. 

The Blackhawks have been trying to win for the last 5 seasons and have been unable to achieve victory in a playoff series. Slight difference, but I wouldn’t expect to you to understand that nuance. 

Never change, Dick. 

The White Sox haven’t won longer than the Blackhawks. In fact the 3 Cups the Blackhawks won last decade equals the amount of championships the White Sox have won ever. And they have had success with extensions. But that doesn’t mean sign everyone to one. Eventually, some don’t work out, This one doesn’t make much sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...