Short of getting Cueto or Sale, I can't think of anyone realistically that will get me that excited.soxhop411 said:Also I believe tickets go on sale on Saturday. So I would think any "BIG" moves will be done by then
Rasputin said:I think the likelihood of the Sox making a firm offer to Max Scherzer just went up, and I wonder what that offer would be.
Why would there be a backlash? He's younger and a better pitcher and Jon Lester is off the market.Dan to Theo to Ben said:I'd rather pay $ than top-tier prospects and I'd rather have Max than Cole, irrespective of that, but it's a lose/lose PR situation with Max. 135/6 probably is not enough, but if you offer him more than Lester, there's gonna be backlash.
chawson said:$135m or thereabouts can likely get us both Shields and McCarthy without giving up a damn soul, and it would certainly make us a better team than signing Lester. Swing a Cespedes/Marrero/Coyle trade for Cueto and the team is absurd.
And in Big Games... he's due.Rasputin said:
We don't need three pitchers and I don't think that's going to get Cueto, but other than that, yeah.
Sign Shields. We don't have to like him. We like the shirt he wears. Plus, I would laugh my ass off if he actually pitched brilliantly for us in the postseason.
I agree with your second paragraph but not necessarily with your first. They might be mutually exclusive. Bastardo for Coyle to replace Miller, as rumored, is a start. Tryouts for their young pitchers for all 3 rotation openings is preferable to wasting resources on mediocrities in that knee jerk reaction. Theo left the Sox because his high acquisition costs for A Gonz and Crawford were a disaster.sodenj5 said:I think #1 on the list is Hamels, but #2 is going to be Latos. I'm sure they'll enquire about Cueto, but the asking price may be too rich. Latos can probably be had for a deal built around Cespedes.
As many have said in other threads, now is not the time to panic and sell off the next generation of Sox in a knee jerk fashion. I don't think that's Cherrington's style anyways, but keeping Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, and Owens should be as high a priority as acquiring pitching.
Volume. Reds have 4 guys coming up on FA in their rotation. Give them the bat they want for this year (Cespedes) and arms to spread out their FA pain. The price tags of this FA shopping spree are likely scaring the crap out of them.bosockboy said:How would Cueto not cost a major piece? Not being snarky, but what do you see his acquisition cost as?
I would love Cueto but I think it costs more.67WasBest said:Volume. Reds have 4 guys coming up on FA in their rotation. Give them the bat they want for this year (Cespedes) and arms to spread out their FA pain. The price tags of this FA shopping spree are likely scaring the crap out of them.
OCD SS said:For those worried that Ben and ownership's not going the extra mile on Lester's contract offer who are now worried that they will turn around and deal a top prospect/ young player, I think it bears explicitly stating that the FO's hallmark in dealing with Lester was restraint.
They had a value for Jon that they weren't willing to go beyond and I'm sure they have a similar valuation of the young guys. If they were going to behave rashly or histrionicly they would have offered Lester more money. I don't think there's any evidence that their discipline would break now.
My issue with this, as I've posted in other threads, is that I don't believe the Sox will ever have the patience to find out whether these young pitchers are then next generation, and I think the more likely scenario is that, for the younger guys, their value is at a peak now. We have so many young pitchers, and while none of them are likely #1 or even #2 starters, they all have the potential to have legitimate ML careers.sodenj5 said:I think #1 on the list is Hamels, but #2 is going to be Latos. I'm sure they'll enquire about Cueto, but the asking price may be too rich. Latos can probably be had for a deal built around Cespedes.
As many have said in other threads, now is not the time to panic and sell off the next generation of Sox in a knee jerk fashion. I don't think that's Cherrington's style anyways, but keeping Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, and Owens should be as high a priority as acquiring pitching.
Say that Boston somehow gets all 3. Why would you trade current top prospects just to let these players walk? You're essentially hoping that these new draft picks will be better than someone like a Swihart who is the best catcher in the minors. The Sox are not the Rays. If they give up top prospects for any of these pitchers they better have an extension worked out or the pitcher should have a few years of control.67WasBest said:Cueto, Fister and Porcello would round out a damn fine rotation and I can see all attainable without expending a major piece. Let them all walk after 2015 with QOs on all, then see where the kids are, and shop again next year.
Anyone calling for Mad Max is simply not paying attention. Not happening!
Because you are an infinitely better team with those three guys? I mean, say they win the WS next year around a rotation of Cueto, Fister, Porcello, Buchholz, and Kelly. Does that make it worth it? I am a prospect nut, but I believe we are all overvaluing them. They are currency.Tyrone Biggums said:Say that Boston somehow gets all 3. Why would you trade current top prospects just to let these players walk? You're essentially hoping that these new draft picks will be better than someone like a Swihart who is the best catcher in the minors. The Sox are not the Rays. If they give up top prospects for any of these pitchers they better have an extension worked out or the pitcher should have a few years of control.
You're misunderstanding the point. I'm not against trading prospects for them but why empty the farm for one year and then not try to resign the players in the off season? The logic makes no senseMerkle's Boner said:Because you are an infinitely better team with those three guys? I mean, say they win the WS next year around a rotation of Cueto, Fister, Porcello, Buchholz, and Kelly. Does that make it worth it? I am a prospect nut, but I believe we are all overvaluing them. They are currency.
Merkle's Boner said:My issue with this, as I've posted in other threads, is that I don't believe the Sox will ever have the patience to find out whether these young pitchers are then next generation, and I think the more likely scenario is that, for the younger guys, their value is at a peak now. We have so many young pitchers, and while none of them are likely #1 or even #2 starters, they all have the potential to have legitimate ML careers.
Between Owens, Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson, there should be something to work with there. A trade centered around 1 or 2 of those guys, coupled with Cespedes and a Marrero/Coyle/Cecchini type, could bring back something. My point is the currency the Sox have the most of at this time is prospects. Let's use some of them because I don't believe we will see them at Fenway.
Merkle's Boner said:Because you are an infinitely better team with those three guys? I mean, say they win the WS next year around a rotation of Cueto, Fister, Porcello, Buchholz, and Kelly. Does that make it worth it? I am a prospect nut, but I believe we are all overvaluing them. They are currency.
KillerBs said:Well they are well and truly painted into a corner now, with the FA market down to Scherzer (yeah right), Shields (5/100++ for age 33-37 years) and a dwindling number of dubious middle of the rotation options which wont come cheap either. I think we are down to Santana, Volquez, McCarthy, CYoung, Masterson and Harang here.
This (in addition to the OF glut) virtually compels the Sox to trade for a SP, which compulsion will increase the transaction cost. I expect the Sox are going to have to make a trade which hurts in order to fill out the rotation.
I agree with this sentiment and at $150m I was close enough to ambivalence that I'm not really upset that he went to the Cubs.soxhop411 said:“@DCameronFG: If Red Sox split their $135 million Lester offer between James Shields and Brandon McCarthy, they might end up better off anyway.”
KillerBs said:Well they are well and truly painted into a corner now, with the FA market down to Scherzer (yeah right), Shields (5/100++ for age 33-37 years) and a dwindling number of dubious middle of the rotation options which wont come cheap either. I think we are down to Santana, Volquez, McCarthy, CYoung, Masterson and Harang here.
This (in addition to the OF glut) virtually compels the Sox to trade for a SP, which compulsion will increase the transaction cost. I expect the Sox are going to have to make a trade which hurts in order to fill out the rotation.
I think it's important here to remember that Marcus Semien was the most important player going back to Oakland in the Shark trade. Boegarts, Betts and Swihart shouldn't be in the conversation.joe dokes said:The "currency" of cash failed to land Lester. The "currency" of players -- prospects and otherwise -- is no more or less valuable, since the flip side of their cost-controlled-ness is that you dont know if they're going to be any good. The Sox obviously think that Bogaerts, Betts and Swihart are going to be good. In fact, the first two aren't really prospects in the Sox eyes -- they're major leaguers. So, barring something insane happening, I'm not really worried that any of those 3 will be part of any deal. Owens is a completely different story, since the Sox are looking for pitching.
Understanding it takes 2 to tango and that one of them is Ruben Amaro -- Hamels already is what Owens might, maybe, aspire to be some day. If the Sox say, "well give you Owens and other stuff we can talk about, but Betts, Bogaerts and Swihart are not part of any deal" and Amaro walks, then so be it. If Amaro insists on the number 1 prospect when the not-number 1 might be better than others' number 1 or might be a better fit for his team, then he's confirmed his Amaro-ness for all to see.
No one knows which prospects will pan out. But we know that it probably won't be *all* of them. That means that for some of them, trading them is the highest and best use they have for the Sox.
Jon Lester is a #2 starter in your world?selahsean said:Why is everyone so certain Shields is only going to get $20 million per year? Lester just set the market for a #2 starter. I don't see Shields costing significantly less in AAV. He'll get less years but I think his AAV is likely to be similar
swingin val said:Jon Lester is a #2 starter in your world?
As others have mentioned. Yes he would have been a number 2 starter in SF and LA. I think the 6/135 offer from Boston means they see the same thing. He's good not great. He's good enough to be a #1 at times and mediocre enough to be a #4 at others. His typical performance is more in line with a #2 starter in my book. Is he good enough to lead a staff? Yes. Good enough for a 7/170? Not even close.swingin val said:Jon Lester is a #2 starter in your world?
Merkle's Boner said:I really don't get why there isn't more love for Cole Hamels. If I'm trading some significant pieces, I want the guy I get to be around for awhile. Hamels will be through 2019 at a similar salary as Lester. The guy has produced 27.8 WAR over the past five seasons, is a proven horse in the postseason, is coming off an amazing year with a 151 ERA+. a 6.6 WAR and a K/9 of 8.7.
Sure it's going to cost you, but you are dealing with Amaro, and there is no way Hamels should be a Phillie next year. Based on what Shark got, I start with Owens, Cespedes, and either Coyle (a local kid), or Cecchini, or Holt if he wants someone more ML-ready.
Minneapolis Millers said:I think what Lester's deal just told us is that Hamels is NOT on a market rate contract. 4/$90 or 5/$110 (w/the option) is closer to what Shields will get than what Lester got. Hamels' deal is short both on years and on money. If he were an FA right now, he'd get, like Lester, 6 years at $25M+ per season.
H78 said:If the Red Sox sign James Shields through his age 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 seasons at more than $100 million, they've effectively done what they wanted to avoid doing with Lester, which is have a pitcher in his mid-to-late 30's making $20m+ per season through the last few years of the contract. The only difference is Lester has proven he can win in Boston and can handle the responsibility of pitching in high pressure games.
If they signed James Shields at 5/100+ I think Sox fans would have a legitimate reason to be livid that the Sox let Lester go to Chicago. You're (arguably) downgrading at the position to basically not have to pay for the next two years of Lester, which is exactly when you would want to pay to have Lester on the team. The big difference between Shields and Lester in the event that they're both an overpay is that with Lester, while the contract is longer, it's longer because you're still getting what should be a couple of prime years at the beginning of the deal. It's much less likely that you're going to get that with a 33 and 34 year old James Shields who's done nothing to prove he can pitch comparably to Lester in Boston.
I'm not saying they should have signed Lester, but what I am saying is if they respond to losing Lester by signing Shields to $100m+ (which is just SoSH speculation at this point), they're setting themselves up for the same problem down the road that they wanted to avoid by signing Lester to a long term deal in the first place. The AAV will be a bit less, but the numbers would still reflect an overpay and I'm not nearly as confident in James Shields over the next five years as I am John Lester over the next six or seven.
E5 Yaz said:I'm coming around to the notion of going for second-tier guys, solid No. 2 or 3 types. Shields seems like a lesser version of good Lackey, while Hamels (even though the contract is favorable) will likely cost a piece in trade that the Sox would regret giving away.
burstnbloom said:
It will most certainly be at least 5/$110 mil ($22m per year) for the Red Sox, which is only $500K per year lower than the Red Sox just deemed appropriate value for Lester. In their minds, this is clearly market rate. Giving up valuable, cost controlled, resources to save 1 year of commitment and roughly $3 mil per year in cash outlay seems crazy given their recent behavior. Considering the restraint the Sox just showed with the Lester negotiation, I think its a fairly safe assumption that they feel the same way.
Especially (for me) since they only went to $22.5 million/year. The Cubs went higher, and a better pitcher (Scherzer) will ask for and likely get more. But, then, the Sox have something to keep the price down if they try to re-up a guy they acquire. Say it's Latos. If they care to, they can offer to extend him at $18 million/year. Tell him the history with Lester made his offer higher, but they want to create a similar history with Latos. Latos has been hurt in the last, so he may be averse to risking it for free agency.PrometheusWakefield said:I agree with this sentiment and at $150m I was close enough to ambivalence that I'm not really upset that he went to the Cubs.