When does the luxury tax threshold increas above $189 million. I would expect salaries to increase then as well.
Edit, it will be $189 million through 2016.
Edit, it will be $189 million through 2016.
Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.
- Thread starter Rice4HOF
- Start date
- Status
Seriously? A team whose manager and GM just walked out on it? A team that plays in that enclosed miniature golf course?EricFeczko said:
I can't get my mind around that. But whatever.
Neither can I. Yet, it wouldn't surprise me if Gammons meant to say something crazy like that.Otis Foster said:
If those tweets are legit and Lester signs with San Fran how hated will Pablo Sandoval be in Boston? Unwarranted? Absolutely. But fans will point to that signing as the reason why the Giants were able to sign Lester. Chicago? It's because Theo wanted it more and the Sox wanted to get cute with Lester and ownership didn't pony up.
I don't buy it, Sox fans should be smarter than that. The team offered a huge and fair deal for 6 years to Lester. If he signs somewhere else it's a decision he will have made, not the Red Sox. The assignation of blame is pointless and without merit.Tyrone Biggums said:
ivanvamp said:
What's the point of obsessing about matching current production with current salary? Is there any reason to think ownership thinks that this is a big deal? All of the ways you get to the same total value of the contract are going to have the same AAV for luxury tax purposes.
Front loading or backloading the contract to change the price per WAR in any given year seems pointless. If John Henry is particularly worried about a 25M yearly payment at the end of the contract, he can "save" 5M when he is paying Lester's 20M salary early in the deal and put it in the bank or invest it.
I can't imagine the Red Sox need to pay anyone very much to "crunch the numbers". They can make their max salary budget a few million less this year and a few million more a few years down the road to make a backloaded contract have the same effect on payroll.
Tyrone Biggums said:
lxt said:
Forgive me if someone saw my post last night saying the same thing (a mean Dope with God complex and porcelain doll collecting habit deleted my post and the one I had responded to) but Lester to San Francisco makes perfect sense. And while Tyrone (and the poster who shall remain unnamed) are right to suggest some might see a Giants bid for Lester as the cost for the Red Sox signing Sandoval, I think San Francisco would have pursued him even they had also re-signed Panda.
While they don't spend a lot, they have the money - they are set to pay off AT&T's debt service in 2017 and chatter around the team suggests they are worth about 30% more than the ~$1B valuation that Forbes placed on them last spring - and this is before winning the World Series.
Furthermore, they need pitching and Lester fills a pretty big hole for a team that trotted out the corpses of Jake Peavy and Ryan Vogelsong down the stretch. The Giants may also be ok with taking a risk on a six year deal with Lester because they know he will pitch the back-years in the pitcher-friendly confines of AT&T. From Lester's perspective it makes sense too - he gets to join a team that has a track record of success, a respected manager and can pitch in a ballpark and league that is, in general, more friendly to aging arms.
We're talking about the same fan base that hates Cespedes because he was traded for Lester. Most of it is media driven but isn't everything in Boston sports. All that someone like Shank has to write is "the acquisition of Jon Lester was not possible until the Giants struck out on Pablo Sandoval" and sports radio becomes even more insufferable. Like it or not but the media is going to link Sandoval and Lester and paint it that the Sox preferred Panda to Lester.SoxLegacy said:
Or that they could have had both had they not screwed with Lester in spring training.
One of those two scenarios are likely.
CSteinhardt said:
Fangraphs did an article a while back on the aging of pitchers. I don't pretend to understand the nuances, but the general findings are not that surprising (I highlighted "general" because every pitcher is different):
According to this, FIP starts deteriorating around age 28 and starts to degenerate even more around age 31. Velocity starts its inevitable decline as early as 26. 34 looks like a terrible age for the average pitcher.
With either Scherzer or Lester...or Zimmerman...or Sabathia, yada, yada - a team needs to be willing to amortize ages 34-37 into ages 31-33, and hope that anything they get out of that aging pitcher in the final years is greater than zero.
So NY signed Sabathia at in 2009 (age 29) at essentially 23M/yr for 7 years (age 35) - but then extended him for 2 more years (age 37) at $25M/yr. He hit a wall in 2013 (age 32). They got 4 very good years out of him for $92M and would have essentially washed 3 more mediocre years at $69M (without the renegotiation). If a #4 starter in 2015 earns $6.5M, New York is theoretically overpaying Sabathia $16.5M/yr in 2013-2015 = say, $50M.
Was the privilege of having a great number 1 for 4 years worth a $50M premium for the final 3 years? I can't answer that.
I'm not even going to factor the extension, because that's just insanity.
With inflation, both Scherzer and Lester are going to require a substantial "golden years" premium. They'll probably pitch better than Sabathia as they age, but the concept remains. What is premium makes sense to overpay an elite starting pitcher in 2015 for his last 4 years: age 34-37?
I'm connecting the dots based on the feedback on Cespedes and all of the articles painting the guy in bad light. That he's tough to deal with, doesn't give it his all, a nightmare for the coaching staff etc...MakMan44 said:
It certainly seems like the local media has a huge axe to grind with him and unfortunately the media has some influence on how people perceive certain things.
Hates Cespedes? Where did that come from? I admit I was less than thrilled with his defense despite his great arm but I sure don't hate him. And I didn't see a lot of hate on SOSH and certainly not just because he was traded for Lester.Tyrone Biggums said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
Those are odd dots to connect.
I have no idea if the media has an axe to grind with him or not, but I can't imagine why in the world it would be affected by the fact that he was acquired in a midseason trade during a lost year.
Tyrone Biggums said:
MakMan44 said:
Yeah, that's awfully hyperbolic, and I think is actually wrong. I get the sense that people didn't like trading Lester, but hardly blames Cespedes for that (the FO is taking much of the blame here). I'd say SoSH hates Cespedes more that the average fan, because of his low OBP. But in Cespedes, people saw a guy who actually hit with RISP, after witnessing months of agonizing ineptitude at that. Cespedes is definitely not hated around these parts.
At this stage in the saga over the signing of Lester do you think this will be settled during the Winter Meetings?
I definitely will be in the camp of one of those tweets. I'd take John Lester over Panlo Sandoval at anything in the vicinity of current prices. It would take Lester getting 8 years at more than $25 per to change my mind.
I posted something along these lines in a chat today, but not as eloquently. If you look at the three Lester suitors, SF offers much in terms of comfort. Besides the points DeJesus mentioned, SF comes with an ace already in place, Madbum, and a recent TOTR pitcher in Cain returning from nonTJS elbow surgery. Hudson is supposedly a good friend of Lester's. Righetti has been in the organization forever. Even with Sandoval leaving, there is a strong veteran core of position players led by Posey and Pence.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
In CHI and BOS Lester is needed to lead a staff that still needs rebuilding at the top; in SF he would join a group of pitchers already established successfully on the team. And that is comfort.
I don't "hate" Cespedes, but I was largely unimpressed by his performance here.
.269/.296/.423/.719, with 5 HR in 213 PA is just not very good. I wouldn't miss his bat if he was gone.
.269/.296/.423/.719, with 5 HR in 213 PA is just not very good. I wouldn't miss his bat if he was gone.
plucy said:
Comfort, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the idea of leading a staff is something Lester values highly. We can only speculate on what Lester finds comforting.
Non-tender deadline is the run-up to the Winter Meetings which begin Monday, Dec. 8. I doubt they would announce on a weekend, so having a deal in place by Friday would be ideal. Plus, I believe someone in Lester's camp said he would have his decision made before the Winter Meetings.czar said:
Sure, the non-tender date has NOTHING to do with Lester signing other than it is right before the Winter Meetings. And numerous teams (and sources) who are in on Lester have said that they expect him to decide before the Winter Meetings (which are in 5 days).czar said:
According to Andy Martino at the NY Daily News, the teams who are chasing Lester expect him to make a decision about his new home as soon as this week, before the Winter Meetings even kick off in San Diego on December 8.
No one dealing with Lester and agents Seth and Sam Levinson believes that he has or will set a deadline, but there is a feeling among interested teams that he could reach a decision this week.
Peter Gammons heard from two NL GMs Sunday that Lester to the Red Sox was “close” to happening.
Nick Cafardo reported Sunday “it appears Lester doesn’t want this process to drag on” and any teams that have not engaged Lester, like the Yankees, should act quickly.
I'm sure there's a lot more info if you read the entire thread. Is it 100% that Lester will sign before the meetings? No, but numerous sources have stated that they feel it's coming to a head.
Plympton91 said:
Jeezus Plymp, I'm already dreading the 2015 main board threads taking an "Ellsbury" turn as discussion moves from what's going on to shoulda, coulda and woulda. This includes your bringing up what you might view as a legit complaint on a daily basis and your loyal fandom then rushing to post about what an ass you are.
edit: Praying that Lester signs with Boston so that this non-fantasy doesn't come to fruition.
No, that's not what I'd give Lester, that's what he'd have to get in order for it to be a worse deal than giving an out of shape slightly above average 3B $100 million.LuckyBen said:
Eh. Not exactly zero From 12-1:czar said:
“@jonmorosi: Trade talks intensified around MLB in last 48 hours, one GM told me tonight. Tender deadline Tues., winter meetings next week. Stay tuned.”
Trades could affect Lester's value just as much as free agent signings. Teams have a clearer idea of which players are available and can give them alternatives to reaching outside their comfort zone.
grimshaw said:
But, again, the ilk of players being non-tendered is so far below Lester's pay grade that it isn't worth thinking about. The *closest* argument you could make was that "hey, the Braves non-tendered Medlen, maybe Ben will go after him instead of Lester" which is obviously ridiculous.
It's possible that Lester wants to sign before the Winter Meetings, although the likelihood of that being a deadline has likely decreased since it was reported. However, there are a lot of people who think the non-tender deadline (here and on Twitter) was going to magically spur the FA/trade market. People were massively overhyping it as some sort of "tipping point" sending us on the way to "MVP Baseball 2005 moves" everywhere.
I'll let this go after this point, but the Hamels rumored trade was reported at 1:30am, an hour and a half after that deadline. Bastardo was a non-tender candidate and it would be strange timing for a trade of that size to go down that late at night. I'm not saying Bastardo makes or breaks a trade of that magnitude, but the framework could have already been there with smaller pieces to be added in for values to match.czar said:
Anyhow, you could be right and it's more speculation than actual facts on my part but my guess is that something happens soon since there don't seem to be any more teams for him to visit.
grimshaw said:
The Hamels reported trade from some guy named Milbert and a 14-year-old kid who claims he has gained 23 high-level sources within MLB organizations in the last month? That Hamels trade?
Trust me, there is ZERO correlation between the non-tender deadline and a late-night figment of a college student's imagination.
Gammo on CBS radio just now:
Lester likely will sign by Monday or Tuesday, if not this weekend
Giants unlikely to be players -- they would've flown him to SF if they thought they could get him
There is a "mystery team" -- Mariners, MFY, or someone else -- hovering around the negotiations slowing things down
Lester likely will sign by Monday or Tuesday, if not this weekend
Giants unlikely to be players -- they would've flown him to SF if they thought they could get him
There is a "mystery team" -- Mariners, MFY, or someone else -- hovering around the negotiations slowing things down
grimshaw said:
Julio Arias is one of the top prospects in baseball. He's not "some dude." This story apparently broke 9 hours ago. With names THAT specific, it should be essentially a done deal, right? Why hasn't anyone else other than a college kid and a 14-year-old broken the trade yet?
The main board has become an endless circle-jerk of blogger RTs this offseason.
Did he actually BREAK the Castillo signing, or is he doing what everyone else is? Grabbing some tweet from somewhere and throwing it against a wall. If it doesn't stick, "eh, let's just ignore it." If it sticks, "HOORAY, I AM LE INSIDER!"Corsi said:
I can see where a kid might get one scoop from a buddies dad who knows an agent, etc...but I can't fathom that someone inside of a MLB front office or reputable agency is going to continuously share info with a 14 year old, let alone multiple contacts. The pure hell he'd get from true insiders would be enough to curtail it. I'm sure the true insiders are sick of twitter DM's being asked to confirm rumors spread by 14 year olds on twitter. I thirst for news on these stories breaking, but this off-season is testing my level of tolerance. I hope this kid goes away.
Can we have a moratorium on posting tweets from unreliable sources? Seriously, what's the point?
Please don't post tweets from people unless they have a reliable history of breaking news. If it's a tweet from someone like that Pepen guy or the 14 year old kid please wait until the deal has been confirmed/verified by a reliable source.
You're too smart to believe this. A roster is a living thing and one player can have impact on another. If a team has multiple holes and can fill one with a non tender, that frees up X million less than they had budgeted, that can allow for the signing of a FA that was previously unattainable.czar said:
Rob Bradford @bradfo 43s43 seconds ago
Source: No deal for Lester right now with any team. Still "going through the process"
Source: No deal for Lester right now with any team. Still "going through the process"
If you want to stretch it, sure.67WasBest said:
There are two easy counterarguments. One, 90% of non-tenders are essentially slam dunks, so this isn't like teams are suddenly gifted with all these unthought of above-replacement free-agent types floating around the day after. They are all marginal major league players who the baseball world knew would likely be FAs come December (full list here: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/03/2014-non-tender-tracker/)
Two, even if you want to assume what you assert above is true (that the non-tender deadline represents a time when teams can plunder less costly FAs to free up money they had earmarked for the offseason), teams would have to negotiate and sign the non-tendered player before turning their attention anew to whatever FA they are interested in. This isn't an overnight process. This isn't quite OOTP where a player can get dumped, signed within 3 hours, and then have the team go "hey, Jon, we can pay you $10m extra ONLY IF you sign tomorrow."
Although I maintain that, again, I can't come up with a compelling argument why this year's NT deadline (especially given WHO was NT'ed, see above) means anything noticeable in the FA/trade world.
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam now
Baseball source shoots down report of Lester agreeing with Cubs. "Nothing is happening -- zero.''
Baseball source shoots down report of Lester agreeing with Cubs. "Nothing is happening -- zero.''
Peavy was 3 - 3 with a 2.40 ERA and a 1.065 WHIP in August and 3 - 0, 1.44 and 0.957 in Sept/Oct. Come on man!DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
This is true. So, imagine how great Lester would be over there. Trouble with that NL < AL thing is that pesky league has been winning a lot of world series lately. Regular season, AL still beats up on NL. Can you imagine a WS with Bum/Lester led Giants vs. the Red Sox? Could break our 3 world series winning streak.foulkehampshire said:
At this point, I'm beginning to tire of Lester, and rationalizing his signing somewhere else by his weak performance in the play-in game (one game, I know) and his seeming reduction in fastball velocity late season with the A's. I know, due diligence by Jon and his agent.
The Giants already have a top-of-the-rotation ace in Bumgarner and just proved that you don't need a loaded rotation to win a championship - I don't understand the need for SF to shell out the big bucks for Lester, especially given that they are also on the hook to pay Matt Cain $20 million a year through 2017 to come back from elbow injury.
Al Zarilla said:
NL is weaker overall but that's not necessarily a bad thing for the good teams.
I agree that the bidding on Lester is too high. I think he'll age well for a pitcher because to my (admittedly untrained) eyes he gets his power from his legs. But even with the market changing, all this talk about going above 6/144 is scary. At least Sandoval can DH in five years.
If Lester was 27 years old, I would be very upset right now with both the negotiations and the potential aftermath. The only thing I would be upset with this off-season would be if the Red Sox were somehow to give up one of our 22 year-olds, Xander and/or Mookie, in a deal. Other that that, it is what it is.
- Status