I was thinking that years 5-6 would be $20M each. Bad math on my part. I agree that he is highly likely to be worth $10M per year if healthy. My bad.
Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
glennhoffmania said:
So if you ignore all of 2012 and the half of 2013 where he started slow he was an ACE! In retrospect those years didn't represent Lester's total value. But it's revisionist history to pretend there wasn't risk by cherrypicking and ignoring stats.
On your second point, I was using cots highest paid players page, which is clearly not updated, but I still think you're wrong on #2. How many pitchers Lester's age signed bigger deals than Homer Bailey? I see Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia. Anyone else?
gammoseditor said:
Did you actually look at his 2013 season? Here is his ERA by month:
March/April- 3.11
May- 3.92
June- 7.62
July- 3.13
August- 2.97
Sep/Oct- 2.57
What am I cherrypicking? His overall ERA+ of 109 wasn't great, but it seems pretty clear to me that he had one bad month that included three really bad starts. Other than that brief period he was great.
Even if you look at 2012, his ERA of 4.82 was not good. But his FIP (4.11) and xFIP (3.82) were significantly better.
As for contracts, if you're only looking at deals that were given to pitchers exactly his age or older, ok. But Sabathia got one more year and 56m more. Verlander got one more year and 75m more. Felix got one more year and 70m more. Greinke got 42m more. Hamels got 39m more. Zito got one more year and 21m more. Christ, Hampton got 2 more years and and 16m more.
Does the fact that these guys all got many millions of dollars more than Bailey not factor into the analysis? Giving him a deal similar to Bailey's would be taking into account the fact that he was a little older than some of these guys, and it still would be a bargain relative to some or all of them.
glennhoffmania said:
I didn't say he didn't deserver Bailey's contract. All reports were that the Red Sox were even willing to go that high but handled the negotiations poorly. You are cherry picking because your are thorwing out starts that actually happened, and using ERA+. I'm sure if you look at lots of pitchers and threw out their 2-3 worst starts they'd all look better.
Also, yes, younger pitchers getting more years is relevant, but all of those younger pitchers were coming off better years than Lester and many of them had disaster contracts. I don't think we should be using the Mike Hampton deal as an argument to write Lester a blank check.
gammoseditor said:
This will be my last comment on this. The guy made 33 starts and 3 of them were pretty bad. I'm not ignoring those 3 starts. I'm simply saying that you were wrong when you argued that he was bad for a full 1.5 years. He was bad in 2012 and for 3 starts in 2013. Those numbers count, and it's why Lester isn't mentioned in the same breath as Felix or Greinke. And it's why he shouldn't get a deal like Verlander's or Tanaka's. But over the last 10 months of baseball he's been great for 9 of them. Focusing on one bad month seems more like cherrypicking to me.
Finally I wasn't suggesting that they should use Hampton or Zito as a guide. You made a claim that giving Lester $105m would be more than almost any pitcher his age. I was pointing out that there are many contracts significantly larger than Bailey's. And while some of them were given to pitchers a year or two younger, many of them were much, much more lucrative, so it balances out. I acknowledged that if you limit the scope to only pitchers 30 and over that you'd be correct. But that seems like a pretty pointless way of looking at comps to determine how good or bad any given contract would be when you consider that the numbers we're talking about are tens of millions of dollars less than the largest contracts.
Merits aside, unless there are really constructive conversations going on we're not privy to (which would be as it should be), people at 4 Yawkey have to be crapping themselves right now.
It's not just that he's performed as an ace. Or that he really is a big game pitcher. Or that his likely destination seems pretty clear barring Magic Johnson telling Colletti to act like Steve Ballmer.
It's all this plus the fact that he could impose a Calton Fiskian level of hurt on us for the next half dozen years.
Yikes.
It's not just that he's performed as an ace. Or that he really is a big game pitcher. Or that his likely destination seems pretty clear barring Magic Johnson telling Colletti to act like Steve Ballmer.
It's all this plus the fact that he could impose a Calton Fiskian level of hurt on us for the next half dozen years.
Yikes.
The Red Sox can afford a disaster contract.
The idea that all potential disaster contracts must be avoided will end with the Red Sox in last place, at least for long enough that they can acquire high draft picks or prospects to make a couple year run. I suppose they could also magically get better at finding overlooked players, but even the A's (who are the best at this) struggled for 5 years before their recent run.
The rules of baseball make it so that it is very difficult to spread risk out if you have a limited tolerance. For instance, if you were buying real estate, if you didn't want to buy a single high risk property, you could buy several lower risk properties and still come up with good earnings. Unfortunately, roster construction rules and the vagaries of player performance mean that if you don't take risks on established players, you can't really duplicate that return through acquiring a bunch of lower end guys. You only have 9 positions on the field, 6 or 7 high impact pitcher spots, and are really limited to 25 roster spots. In terms of win risk, a guy who gives zero value on the field hurts you the same in opportunity cost no matter what you are paying him.
Put it this way, using WAR for simplicity. Let's say that Jon Lester is expected to be a 5 WAR pitcher. You can pay $25 million for him. It's certainly true that you can go out and spend $25 million on some combination of other pitchers with EV that would add up to 5 WAR. In one way this would lower your risk. But, in order for those other guys to achieve that, they have to be given an opportunity, you can't pre-select who is going to fail or succeed ahead of time. So really, the risk (in terms of winning) ends up being higher, because you may choose the wrong guy or guys and each individual guy has as much or more variation than Lester.
These concepts are more complicated than this example, but I wanted to demonstrate what I was getting at.
The idea that all potential disaster contracts must be avoided will end with the Red Sox in last place, at least for long enough that they can acquire high draft picks or prospects to make a couple year run. I suppose they could also magically get better at finding overlooked players, but even the A's (who are the best at this) struggled for 5 years before their recent run.
The rules of baseball make it so that it is very difficult to spread risk out if you have a limited tolerance. For instance, if you were buying real estate, if you didn't want to buy a single high risk property, you could buy several lower risk properties and still come up with good earnings. Unfortunately, roster construction rules and the vagaries of player performance mean that if you don't take risks on established players, you can't really duplicate that return through acquiring a bunch of lower end guys. You only have 9 positions on the field, 6 or 7 high impact pitcher spots, and are really limited to 25 roster spots. In terms of win risk, a guy who gives zero value on the field hurts you the same in opportunity cost no matter what you are paying him.
Put it this way, using WAR for simplicity. Let's say that Jon Lester is expected to be a 5 WAR pitcher. You can pay $25 million for him. It's certainly true that you can go out and spend $25 million on some combination of other pitchers with EV that would add up to 5 WAR. In one way this would lower your risk. But, in order for those other guys to achieve that, they have to be given an opportunity, you can't pre-select who is going to fail or succeed ahead of time. So really, the risk (in terms of winning) ends up being higher, because you may choose the wrong guy or guys and each individual guy has as much or more variation than Lester.
These concepts are more complicated than this example, but I wanted to demonstrate what I was getting at.
The above is true, but it's even more frustrating when placed in context. If the RS flat out sucked, particularly if they were hamstrung by bad contracts, you could much more easily part with Lester -- What difference does it make, as we're losing anyway. Here the opposite appears true -- much reason for optimism at controlled player prices.
This has all the earmarks of a lab rat out of control -- we've found the competitive edge and will exploit the shit out of it.
And if I'm right about this, it's not Lucchino-esque. He may have orchestrated the contest-living approach in Feb, but most likely at Henry's command.
This has all the earmarks of a lab rat out of control -- we've found the competitive edge and will exploit the shit out of it.
And if I'm right about this, it's not Lucchino-esque. He may have orchestrated the contest-living approach in Feb, but most likely at Henry's command.
I am not a WAR expert by any means, but have seen it stated several times that a 5 WAR player is actually more valuable than 5 1 WAR players. How, if at all, does that factor into negotiating process for an elite player?
He loves the laundry as much as we do!uncannymanny said:
Seriously, absolutely nothing, I don't think he's going to and more importantly, I have no reason to believe the Sox view the solution to their various miscalculations is to open the vault and pay for the number of years it's going to take.
I think the Sox window to sign Lester with or without a 'hometown discount' at the level the team apparently would be comfortable with was after the 2012 season, when he was 28. Maybe Lester wasn't interested, if so, his pending departure could have been predicted with Ellsbury clarity.
With the the AL East becoming less competitive, this is the perfect time to go ALL IN. The front office is dilly dallying around with lowball offers and missing the BIG picture, we may never get a window like this again. It feels like their attitude is "with the AL East down we don't need to risk spending big to stay competitive". Fuck that, jack up the ticket prices, NESN ad rates and lets dominate.
Not only should they spend the necessary $$$ on Lester but go get Hamels (if available) while we're at it. Several have exhibited up thread how with all the infusion of youngsters (and their min contracts) we could afford Lester at $25MM rather easily.
The more guys like Lester and Hamels we have, the more desperate pitching starved teams like Toronto, NY and Baltimore will get and be inclined to overpay in the open market. Having those 2 at the top of the rotation will also give guys like Rubby, Webster, Ranaudo, Workman, Owens the necessary development time to round into form.
Not only should they spend the necessary $$$ on Lester but go get Hamels (if available) while we're at it. Several have exhibited up thread how with all the infusion of youngsters (and their min contracts) we could afford Lester at $25MM rather easily.
The more guys like Lester and Hamels we have, the more desperate pitching starved teams like Toronto, NY and Baltimore will get and be inclined to overpay in the open market. Having those 2 at the top of the rotation will also give guys like Rubby, Webster, Ranaudo, Workman, Owens the necessary development time to round into form.
glennhoffmania said:
OK, but I didn't say he was bad for 1.5 years. I said he was league average for two years. I even added on to that to say you were right that those two years didn't represent his actual value. My point from the beginning was its revisionist history to pretend there weren't concerns before the year started about giving Lester a massive contract. Again, because he was league average for two years. I decided to make this point because someone posted numbers showing exactly that, and sarcastically reacted that there was something to be concerned about. When looking at the numbers posted there actually was something to be concerned about.
MakMan44 said:
The two years combined I meant, and it is what I said originally. Based on the ERA+ that was posted by someone else.
5/$125m. Take it or leave it, Jon. Give him 72 hours. We should know by then if we're buyers or sellers.
He might not take it, but I'd offer this right now and ask for an answer before the deadline:
5 yrs, $110m, plus a Lackey-like team option to add a 6th year for $1M if he has any season-ending surgery. I'd add a vesting player option for another year at $22m that could replace the team option if (a) Lester wins a CYA at any point and does not finish year 5 on the DL, or (b) pitches 200 innings or more in year 5.
This beats the Wainwright and Bailey deals. Gives him some length, some incentive, and some team protection. Maybe it elicits a 6 yr, $144m counter, in which case you've defined the negotiating universe a bit better. Maybe there's no counter, which tells you something as well. Just because the other side says they don't want any more offers at this time doesn't mean you can't make one. If the team is at all considering trading Lester, they HAVE to get a final sense of whether they could extend him on favorable terms.
5 yrs, $110m, plus a Lackey-like team option to add a 6th year for $1M if he has any season-ending surgery. I'd add a vesting player option for another year at $22m that could replace the team option if (a) Lester wins a CYA at any point and does not finish year 5 on the DL, or (b) pitches 200 innings or more in year 5.
This beats the Wainwright and Bailey deals. Gives him some length, some incentive, and some team protection. Maybe it elicits a 6 yr, $144m counter, in which case you've defined the negotiating universe a bit better. Maybe there's no counter, which tells you something as well. Just because the other side says they don't want any more offers at this time doesn't mean you can't make one. If the team is at all considering trading Lester, they HAVE to get a final sense of whether they could extend him on favorable terms.
I wonder this as well.glennhoffmania said:
I wonder why it was ok to sign Pedroia to a 6/84 contract that begins with his age 32 season.
I wonder where they will find these under 30 players to spend money on, especially if they aren't bidding on the Tanakas and Darvishs of the world.
Finally, I wonder if it's really a better/safer use of assets to pay Stanton $200,000,000 once you factor in the 18 years of Betts/Swihart/Owens they would also give up.
Which is what the Yankees do well. They identify a player they want, put their best offer out there and say goodbye if it isn't accepted. Obviously the Yankees have unique economics at their disposal but the Red Sox history is filled with these low-ball offers that they improve on way too late.EvilEmpire said:
snowmanny said:
I thought the Yankee M.O. was to tell a player to find the best offer, and then come back to them so they can top it?
Or, just pony up for Lester without jacking up the ticket prices or ad rates. The Red Sox are swimming in money. They have the second highest revenues in baseball behind the Yankees, way ahead of everyone else. http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/benhogan said:
The franchise is now worth an estimated $1.5 billion. Pretty good return on investment after 12 years. http://www.forbes.com/teams/boston-red-sox/
The following is an interesting article about how payroll increases haven't kept pace with the huge spike in revenues the last 10 years.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/predicting-major-league-baseball-salary-growth/
It amazes me that so many fans continue to safeguard the owners' money and talk about the luxury tax threshhold as if it's a hard cap. I love this ownership group, and by and large they've done right by us, but they need to continue spending money to counterbalance the huge revenues they are pulling in. We have to spend money. It's our competitive advantage. It's why we pay such high ticket prices. We can't operate like a small market team. They get advantages in the draft that we will never get, such as the supplemental competitive balance picks that were just announced today. SPEND THE MONEY AND SIGN LESTER NOW.
Minneapolis Millers said:
I think the problem with that offer is that Lester and his agents know he's looking at 6 years on the open market, so signing what could be a 6/111 deal if he gets hurt, he's thinking if he's a FA he can probably get close to 6/150 on the market. I know Jon wants to stay here, but I think leaving 40M on the table is a bit much of a hometown discount....
The Yankees may have unique economics but it shouldn't be that different from ours. The Boston market is huge. If the Dodgers are capable of paying 250m per year then can't we come close? Why should our payroll be constrained at almost 30% lower. The Yankees will always spend, but I don't see why we can't, too.snowmanny said:
Henry has come out and said that the luxury tax threshold doesn't have the effect that many people predicted, that it's all right to be over it because it's not as punitive as observers predicted, so I'm pretty sure that's him signalling that we're willing to go above it but he's obviously not going to broadcast it because it's not to our benefit when negotiating with players.
I think people are conflating issues here.
The first one is the Sox apparent reluctance to offer premium players over 30 long term contracts. The second issue is the Sox willingness to increase payroll.
The fact is that they may well be willing to increase payroll if they could get young players and extend them through their prime playing years. If the Sox were able to land Stanton they would likely pay up to extend him through his early 30s. If Bogaerts continues to come along and prove his talent, they may well look to extend him at some point as well. Ditto for other prospects that pan out and have rare skills. Its not impossible to envision a scenario where they increase payroll significantly to lock up young talent at key positions.
That said - and I know there is a difference of opinion here so I will be the first to admit this is simply my opinion - I think that the Sox FO would say that paying up for a player well into their thirties is absolutely the worst way to increase payroll. Statistically you are likely paying a premium for that players decline years and, unlike young players who may still have value to other teams, a player like that is essentially expensive to move.
In other words, at team still has flexibility by paying up for prime year players but loses quite a bit of that latitude for decline year players. The former is worth a premium contract while the latter simply isn't.
One other thing - I don't think there are hard and fast rules here. There may come a time when the Sox FO decides that paying a player on a long-term, premium contract well into his thirties makes sense. However that would prove to be as a result of an exceptional set of circumstances.
Well, I guess two other things...in light of the Make A Wish thread that mauidano posted on the board here, perhaps we can all lobby the Sox for our own Make A Wish to have them keep Lester. Unfortunately what ails us is likely to engender scorn rather than sympathy...
The first one is the Sox apparent reluctance to offer premium players over 30 long term contracts. The second issue is the Sox willingness to increase payroll.
The fact is that they may well be willing to increase payroll if they could get young players and extend them through their prime playing years. If the Sox were able to land Stanton they would likely pay up to extend him through his early 30s. If Bogaerts continues to come along and prove his talent, they may well look to extend him at some point as well. Ditto for other prospects that pan out and have rare skills. Its not impossible to envision a scenario where they increase payroll significantly to lock up young talent at key positions.
That said - and I know there is a difference of opinion here so I will be the first to admit this is simply my opinion - I think that the Sox FO would say that paying up for a player well into their thirties is absolutely the worst way to increase payroll. Statistically you are likely paying a premium for that players decline years and, unlike young players who may still have value to other teams, a player like that is essentially expensive to move.
In other words, at team still has flexibility by paying up for prime year players but loses quite a bit of that latitude for decline year players. The former is worth a premium contract while the latter simply isn't.
One other thing - I don't think there are hard and fast rules here. There may come a time when the Sox FO decides that paying a player on a long-term, premium contract well into his thirties makes sense. However that would prove to be as a result of an exceptional set of circumstances.
Well, I guess two other things...in light of the Make A Wish thread that mauidano posted on the board here, perhaps we can all lobby the Sox for our own Make A Wish to have them keep Lester. Unfortunately what ails us is likely to engender scorn rather than sympathy...
But when you sign home grown players to long-term deals buying out years of arbitration and early free-agency, you generally do so at levels that are really advantageous under the luxury tax thresholds. Witness the $13 million options in Lester's and Buchholz deals. Even if they hit on all those players and sign them all to such deals, you're still only looking at $110 million in AAV or so.maufman said:
If the farm system is as good as they think it is, and if they aren't going to compete for mega stars, they're going to have a payroll that is outside the top 5 and perhaps out of the top 10. To me, the goal should be to be able to use Betts at $500k instead of Victorino at $13 million, not to use Dempster at $13 million instead of Lester at $22 million.
The flexibility is the key. They are playing a bunch of kids that seem to be ok at the top level. That means they are locked in to less than $10 million for 5 position players if they deem them to be starters for the next few years.
That's a ton of payroll flexibility, where they could easily add starting pitching at the deadline next year if they are in that position.
By no means am I trying to suggest anything about Lester or infer that whoever is available at deadline next year is better than Lester, but every year there are some teams that are sellers and the Sox appear to be in a great position about flexibility.
If given authority I don't know what my dollar amount or decision would be, but it's nice that there's in a position to be ok either way.
That's a ton of payroll flexibility, where they could easily add starting pitching at the deadline next year if they are in that position.
By no means am I trying to suggest anything about Lester or infer that whoever is available at deadline next year is better than Lester, but every year there are some teams that are sellers and the Sox appear to be in a great position about flexibility.
If given authority I don't know what my dollar amount or decision would be, but it's nice that there's in a position to be ok either way.
In an e-mail to the Herald last night, Red Sox principal owner John Henry said the team has agreed not to resume contract talks with its ace left-hander until the season is done. In late June, Lester said he didn’t want to be bothered during the season with negotiations and risk becoming a distraction for the team.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/07/red_sox_notebook_jon_lester_talks_off?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bostonherald%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Fred_sox+%28Boston+Red+Sox+-+Red+Sox+%26+MLB+-+BostonHerald.com%29
So realistically, what can he fetch in a deadline trade?
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/07/red_sox_notebook_jon_lester_talks_off?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bostonherald%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Fred_sox+%28Boston+Red+Sox+-+Red+Sox+%26+MLB+-+BostonHerald.com%29
So realistically, what can he fetch in a deadline trade?
Awesome. Great work, FO. I say trade him and then offer him 6/150 in the offseason. If he accepts, great. You just locked up a great pitcher plus you got a couple of prospects and it doesn't cost a pick. If he rejects, you never had a shot anyway.
Well, there's the problem: it seems as though the FO has no interest in going anywhere near 6/150.glennhoffmania said:
They really should move him now. He's a short-term rental, but he's also a game-changer for some lucky team. Hard to believe he won't fetch something better than the comp pick.
Unless they are overwhelmed by an offer, I don't think the FO has the stomach for this, particularly if it isn't clear by the deadline that the season is done.
As suggested before, this is where I make the big splash if I'm Duquette and offer the Orioles best prospects to get over the hump. I don't think they have enough to get it done without someone like Lester. I'd also look to shore up the pen and make a run at Koki or Miller. Then I'd open the vault for Lester in FA. Those would be transformational moves for that franchise. Don't know if they have the prospects to get it done
As suggested before, this is where I make the big splash if I'm Duquette and offer the Orioles best prospects to get over the hump. I don't think they have enough to get it done without someone like Lester. I'd also look to shore up the pen and make a run at Koki or Miller. Then I'd open the vault for Lester in FA. Those would be transformational moves for that franchise. Don't know if they have the prospects to get it done
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
The problem with this is that the market is set so that these players are rarely available without shipping off prospects. And at the end of the day, the price in giving up low cost years of those prospects may make up for the price of lowering risk on the FA players. The last player that meets your criteria to actually hit FA is probably ARod when he signed with the Rangers. I'm sure I'm missing a few but most of the premium players have been either retained pre-FA by their original teams (e.g. Tulo) or by teams they were traded to (e.g. Cabrera). You might get a situation like this with Price though he's going to be 29 as a FA and will likely sign until his age 35 or 36 year.
You have to pay to eliminate risk one way or the other. You can pay for it with money, you can pay for it with prospects, you can pay for it with not winning as many games. But at the end of the day, you have to pay for it. The Red Sox have not discovered the next great market inefficiency in not signing expensive FA's. This is a practice that low payroll teams have been using for years - trying to find the best of the "affordable" guys. Sometimes you strike gold and sometimes you strike nothing.
It seems completely inconceivable to me that the Sox would trade Lester within the division--still less at the deadline, to the first-place team. The PR hit of trading him at all will be bad enough.
I mean, it's not quite like trading him to the Yankees, but still....
I mean, it's not quite like trading him to the Yankees, but still....
P'tucket said:
Yeah I agree. I meant that's what I would do, but it seems pretty clear that the FO has no intention of keeping Lester so they may as well trade him. The PR hit from letting him go to NY will be just as bad as trading him now. They fucked this up real good, both from a baseball perspective and a PR perspective.
Corsi said:
Well, this got more depressing. I just don't get what the FO is trying to accomplish here. What a nightmare.
I agree. I'm just calling the RS on their smartest-kid-in-the-class approach.Savin Hillbilly said:
If they really believe what has been leaked, cold logic dictates dealing him to the highest bidder at the deadline if, as appears likely, the RS are realistically out if it. They think they are right and the other guy isn't. Therefore, they should be indifferent to the other guy's upside because theirs' be greater long term. And the PR angle should not matter one bit if you have that conviction.
In for a dime, in for a dollar, if you really think you're right. And, by the way, this should preclude overpaying for age 39 mediocrity in the offseason to dress things up.
Do they have the guts? I don't think so.
If there's good news it's that, because we're unlikely to make the playoffs, the FO will have the entire month of October to talk with Lester, rather than a just the few days after the World Series before Lester becomes a free agent. The bad news is that Seth will tell Ben that Ben's best-and-final is about $50 million short of where Lester's market will likely be in free agency.
With each passing day, it's just difficult to envision a scenario where this ends well.
With each passing day, it's just difficult to envision a scenario where this ends well.
smastroyin said:
I'm assuming that the FO knows, or at least has a good idea, what Lester's bottom line is. If they decide to meet it and Ben makes a call I'd think that they'd get a response.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Lester is really pissed and ready to move, so no offer would be accepted at this point.
Safe to assume the "Industry source" is Lester's agent. Looks like just a tactical countermove to make it clear that negotiations aren't stuck because they're asking for the moon.Corsi said:
Edit--what dc said.
smastroyin said:
All true, and furthermore some of the player development people should be honest with Henry and tell him despite all their efforts in scouting & drafting and talk of guys like Owens, there's quite a good chance his time on earth will expire before the Sox develop another pitcher in Lester's class, i.e., TINSTAAPP.
Corsi said:
So basically what I guessed a few minutes ago. At least there's a glimmer of hope then.
- Status