PDA

View Full Version : Renting Chris Sale???


BRDSR
08-01-2013, 12:14 AM
I'm sure there's some reason that nobody's ever done this (that I know of), but what would prevent the White Sox from "renting" Chris Sale to another team for one or two season?

Think about it like renting an apartment you bought for cheap in a recently-turned-upscale neighborhood...Sale is owed 3.5m next year and 6.0m the year after. He's worth much more than that. The White Sox are not going to contend in 2014 under any circumstances, and are probably not going to contend in 2015. Why can't the White Sox rent Chris Sale to another team for that period for market value (let's say, just for argument's sake, 9.0m each year), and then get him back for 2016? The White Sox make a profit of 8.5m on a great contract over a two-year period, Sale gets to pitch for a contender, and then the White Sox get him back when they're a contender again.

Like I said, I'm sure there's a reason this can't be done. But if it could, it seems like a great idea!

doublem23
08-01-2013, 12:26 AM
Like I said, I'm sure there's a reason this can't be done. But if it could, it seems like a great idea!

Soccer teams do this all the time. I'm sure the MLB CBA prohibits it.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
08-01-2013, 12:29 AM
For one, the player's union would revolt if the Sox were to "rent" Chris Sale at more than his contract price and the team pockets the profit instead of giving it to Sale. There's also the fact of determining market price, how to go about it, what happens if he suffers a career-ending injury during the rental period, and myriad other complications. Then we get to the whole "meaning of a contract" thing. Renting players out basically defeats the purpose of signing long-term deals: the security of being with one team for an extended period of time.

It's just way too complicated to pull off.

Zisk77
08-01-2013, 10:38 AM
For one, the player's union would revolt if the Sox were to "rent" Chris Sale at more than his contract price and the team pockets the profit instead of giving it to Sale. There's also the fact of determining market price, how to go about it, what happens if he suffers a career-ending injury during the rental period, and myriad other complications. Then we get to the whole "meaning of a contract" thing. Renting players out basically defeats the purpose of signing long-term deals: the security of being with one team for an extended period of time.

It's just way too complicated to pull off.

Agree.
Plus, other teams would use Sale like a rental...overuse him. Then he gets injured and they return a broken product...oops.

The Immigrant
08-01-2013, 10:49 AM
Agree.
Plus, other teams would use Sale like a rental...overuse him.

You mean they might let him throw 120+ pitches in meaningless games on multiple occasions in a lost season? The Sox would never allow that!

kobo
08-01-2013, 10:55 AM
I'm sure there's some reason that nobody's ever done this (that I know of), but what would prevent the White Sox from "renting" Chris Sale to another team for one or two season?

Think about it like renting an apartment you bought for cheap in a recently-turned-upscale neighborhood...Sale is owed 3.5m next year and 6.0m the year after. He's worth much more than that. The White Sox are not going to contend in 2014 under any circumstances, and are probably not going to contend in 2015. Why can't the White Sox rent Chris Sale to another team for that period for market value (let's say, just for argument's sake, 9.0m each year), and then get him back for 2016? The White Sox make a profit of 8.5m on a great contract over a two-year period, Sale gets to pitch for a contender, and then the White Sox get him back when they're a contender again.

Like I said, I'm sure there's a reason this can't be done. But if it could, it seems like a great idea!
Two guesses here.

1) The CBA most likely prohibits this

2) He signed a contract with the White Sox, not with all 30 MLB teams. The White Sox don't "own" Chris Sale therefore they can't rent him out to other teams.

DSpivack
08-01-2013, 12:03 PM
Soccer teams do this all the time. I'm sure the MLB CBA prohibits it.

Even more complicated than loan deals for young players to get playing time are the co-ownership deals that seem to mostly happen in Italy. Those can get messy and are often very shady deals.

waldo_the_wolf
08-02-2013, 08:33 AM
Then would he change his name to Chris Rental? Get it?

SCCWS
08-02-2013, 08:43 AM
Then would he change his name to Chris Rental? Get it?

How about regifting. Hahn could send Dunn back to Washington as a stimulus package or Alexei back to Fidel as a get-well present.

cws05champ
08-02-2013, 09:04 AM
This is the worst idea I have ever seen.

First, the issue of players getting injured while they are under another teams watch. Second, could you imagine if this was allowed at any time? Teams with large payrolls like the Dodgers and Yankees could just rent several "mercenaries" every year for the 2nd half of a season without any long term commitment and out bid any other teams for these services.

doublem23
08-02-2013, 09:08 AM
Even more complicated than loan deals for young players to get playing time are the co-ownership deals that seem to mostly happen in Italy. Those can get messy and are often very shady deals.

Anything that has to do with Italian club football is probably shady as ****

SOXPHILE
08-02-2013, 09:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlA9bNk3b5Q

DSpivack
08-02-2013, 11:30 AM
Anything that has to do with Italian club football is probably shady as ****

Good point.

KyWhiSoxFan
08-02-2013, 03:29 PM
Let's ask Curt Flood for his opinion on whether a team owns the player and can do this.

Brian26
08-02-2013, 08:50 PM
This is the worst idea I have ever seen.



Ease up. As a point of discussion, it is an interesting topic. The original poster wasn't necessarily suggesting it happen, but rather was asking about the concept. It isn't entirely unheard in other sports, as has been pointed out. On the otherhand, as others have mentioned, the rules in the CBA would never allow it along with some of the logistics regarding overuse on pitchers. All that said, there have been cases of "under the table" renting of players for half seasons. I can think of a number of examples of trades where the player was to become a free agent and re-signed with the original team after the end of the season.

TDog
08-02-2013, 09:56 PM
Ease up. As a point of discussion, it is an interesting topic. The original poster wasn't necessarily suggesting it happen, but rather was asking about the concept. It isn't entirely unheard in other sports, as has been pointed out. On the otherhand, as others have mentioned, the rules in the CBA would never allow it along with some of the logistics regarding overuse on pitchers. All that said, there have been cases of "under the table" renting of players for half seasons. I can think of a number of examples of trades where the player was to become a free agent and re-signed with the original team after the end of the season.

Nonetheless, the way people exaggerate the importance of pitch counts and innings for pitchers anymore, I am surprised to see this thread before a thread suggesting that Sale be shut down for the year. Some here were happy to see Crain injured in spring training because it meant he wouldn't be pitching for Team Canada before the season.

Or maybe I missed the thread suggesting Sale be shut down for the year.

Brian26
08-02-2013, 10:13 PM
Or maybe I missed the thread suggesting Sale be shut down for the year.

You missed that thread. I have my own theories on it. Everyone is bothered seeing Sale putting up 120+ pitches, but Lincecum threw 150 in his no-hitter. My theory is that this is Chicago, where Dusty Baker was lampooned for destroying Prior and Wood in 2003, and Sox fans are afraid of seeing Sale get hurt. Apples and oranges, though, and I'm not entirely convinced Dusty was at fault.

DSpivack
08-03-2013, 01:22 AM
Ease up. As a point of discussion, it is an interesting topic. The original poster wasn't necessarily suggesting it happen, but rather was asking about the concept. It isn't entirely unheard in other sports, as has been pointed out. On the otherhand, as others have mentioned, the rules in the CBA would never allow it along with some of the logistics regarding overuse on pitchers. All that said, there have been cases of "under the table" renting of players for half seasons. I can think of a number of examples of trades where the player was to become a free agent and re-signed with the original team after the end of the season.

This is true. The reason this doesn't work for baseball is because it's a closed system, as is every other American sports league. In the soccer world, better teams loan out players to lesser ones so those youngsters can develop and be more ready for prime time as they age. Or, you could argue that baseball does this already, with a more organized and structured system that is the minor leagues. Major league organizations have affiliate contracts with teams (somewhat similar affiliate deals do exist to a much lesser extent in the soccer world, too, and often across countries) and loan out their players to those teams as they see fit.

soxfanreggie
08-03-2013, 09:14 AM
Ease up. As a point of discussion, it is an interesting topic. The original poster wasn't necessarily suggesting it happen, but rather was asking about the concept. It isn't entirely unheard in other sports, as has been pointed out. On the otherhand, as others have mentioned, the rules in the CBA would never allow it along with some of the logistics regarding overuse on pitchers. All that said, there have been cases of "under the table" renting of players for half seasons. I can think of a number of examples of trades where the player was to become a free agent and re-signed with the original team after the end of the season.

I agree - very interesting topic - and the OP should be commended for thinking of something to discuss that isn't related to how bad we're playing. The problem is that you would have a few teams that would rent much more talent than everyone else (ex. Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers) because they can afford to. Even if they made the renters recognize the rented player's full contract as part of that year's salary, those teams have shown they aren't afraid to pay luxury taxes. It would be interesting to see the thoughts of small-market teams if they'd like to shed more salary at the end of the year, albeit it hurting their attendance.

My question for soccer fans: is the rental of most players going to different leagues. For example, would Team A in League 1 most likely rent their player to Team B in League 2.

DSpivack
08-03-2013, 12:54 PM
I agree - very interesting topic - and the OP should be commended for thinking of something to discuss that isn't related to how bad we're playing. The problem is that you would have a few teams that would rent much more talent than everyone else (ex. Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers) because they can afford to. Even if they made the renters recognize the rented player's full contract as part of that year's salary, those teams have shown they aren't afraid to pay luxury taxes. It would be interesting to see the thoughts of small-market teams if they'd like to shed more salary at the end of the year, albeit it hurting their attendance.

My question for soccer fans: is the rental of most players going to different leagues. For example, would Team A in League 1 most likely rent their player to Team B in League 2.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Chelsea, for example, loaned out one of their most promising young strikers to a lesser Premier League team last season. Romelu Lukaku scored 17 goals for West Brom, ranking 6th in the league (and above anyone for Chelsea). But in terms of numbers, most of the younger players like him are being loaned out to lower league sides. Also, it's a bit harder for foreign players to get work visas in the UK, so often younger players will be acquired and loaned out for a year or two until they're able to get a visa. Or other players will just go out on loan to foreign teams for other reasons.

Tragg
08-04-2013, 10:42 AM
You missed that thread. I have my own theories on it. Everyone is bothered seeing Sale putting up 120+ pitches, but Lincecum threw 150 in his no-hitter. My theory is that this is Chicago, where Dusty Baker was lampooned for destroying Prior and Wood in 2003, and Sox fans are afraid of seeing Sale get hurt. Apples and oranges, though, and I'm not entirely convinced Dusty was at fault.

Lincecum is in his contract year. No skin off the Giants back.
The only team that comes close to wearing the tread on their starters like the Sox is Detroit. Looks like that's starting to show on Verlander.
The Sox have nothing to play for.

Renting out players would destroy the competitive balance in baseball. It's a mini Finley selling his players to the Yankees.

TheVulture
08-04-2013, 11:44 AM
I'm sure there's some reason that nobody's ever done this (that I know of), but what would prevent the White Sox from "renting" Chris Sale to another team for one or two season?

Think about it like renting an apartment you bought for cheap in a recently-turned-upscale neighborhood...Sale is owed 3.5m next year and 6.0m the year after. He's worth much more than that. The White Sox are not going to contend in 2014 under any circumstances, and are probably not going to contend in 2015. Why can't the White Sox rent Chris Sale to another team for that period for market value (let's say, just for argument's sake, 9.0m each year), and then get him back for 2016? The White Sox make a profit of 8.5m on a great contract over a two-year period, Sale gets to pitch for a contender, and then the White Sox get him back when they're a contender again.

Like I said, I'm sure there's a reason this can't be done. But if it could, it seems like a great idea!

Sounds like someone's been reading about the Negro Leagues again?

TDog
08-04-2013, 12:03 PM
Lincecum is in his contract year. No skin off the Giants back. ...


You can't be suggesting that the Giants know that throwing too many pitches in one game will permanently damage a pitcher and they allowed Lincecum to be damaged because his career as a Giant is finished.

The Giants at the time of Lincecum's no-hitter actually had hopes of contending. But this season for the Giants has been as bad as this season for the White Sox, relative to expectations. Being swept by the Cubs at home probably ended any hopes that even the most optimistic had that the Giants would get back in the race, but that was after Lincecum's no-hitter.

There were additional circumstances to the game that many who only look at pitch counts miss.. It was Lincecum's last start before the All-Star Break. He was going to get at least a week's rest.

Taking Lincecum out of the game when he wanted very much to stay in the game, in his free agent year, could have inspired resentment against the only organization he has ever played for. If the Giants re-sign Lincecum, they will only do so on their own terms. Not that such a consideration was primary in Bruce Bochy's mind, but it had to be part of the framework he was working under. Bochy was a pretty good catcher before becoming a very good manager.

On a related topic (although this might be a response to a barely on-topic concept), I am happy to see the Nationals looking like they won't make the postseason a season after they looked like they had the inside track to the World Series before shutting down Strasburg because of an arbitrary innings limit. Maybe people will come to see they aren't helping the game by setting limits on pitchers that have more to do with the work they put in than how well they are pitching.

Tragg
08-05-2013, 12:47 AM
You can't be suggesting that the Giants know that throwing too many pitches in one game will permanently damage a pitcher and they allowed Lincecum to be damaged because his career as a Giant is finished.

Is that what I said? Of course not. It can be inferred from my statement that I think 140 pitches is harmful to a pitcher in the long term, and the long term isn't the Giants problem And I'm sure they'd have pulled him had he wanted to be pulled. But team let their pitchers go for no-hitters I think 120+ pitches is harmful. All of that wears them down. Sidenote- the Sox, Robin Ventura, lead the majors in pitchers who have thrown over 120 pitches per game.
You can't be suggesting that the Giants believe that throwing 140+ pitches has no harmful effect on a pitcher, can you?

TDog
08-08-2013, 12:58 AM
Is that what I said? Of course not. It can be inferred from my statement that I think 140 pitches is harmful to a pitcher in the long term, and the long term isn't the Giants problem And I'm sure they'd have pulled him had he wanted to be pulled. But team let their pitchers go for no-hitters I think 120+ pitches is harmful. All of that wears them down. Sidenote- the Sox, Robin Ventura, lead the majors in pitchers who have thrown over 120 pitches per game.
You can't be suggesting that the Giants believe that throwing 140+ pitches has no harmful effect on a pitcher, can you?

It depends on the pitcher and the situation. Bruce Bochy is a former catcher who would make a very good pitching coach, and I believe that he and the Giants have every reason to care about Tim Lincecum's long-term health. I don't know that there is anything necessarily wrong with pitchers throwing more than 140 pitches in a game. It might be, though, if you expect him to come back on three day's rest. Lincecum was getting more than a week off before his next start.

I don't think pitch counts are nearly as important as people make them out to be.

FielderJones
08-08-2013, 10:12 AM
I don't think pitch counts are nearly as important as people make them out to be.

I agree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_count#Criticism). Somehow baseball did without them for over 100 years.

http://deadspin.com/yu-darvishs-arm-is-not-a-gun-why-hard-pitch-count-lim-508279020