Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.
- Thread starter Rice4HOF
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, especially since Lester floated the concept of a hometown discount himself (albeit in the Spring).
For a guy (Gammons) who covered the Sox for decades, he sure comes across as a bitter ol' fool... must be his hatred of Lucky.
For a guy (Gammons) who covered the Sox for decades, he sure comes across as a bitter ol' fool... must be his hatred of Lucky.
Here is article in which he was quoted: http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/10340797/jon-lester-wants-remain-red-sox-take-hometown-discountDick Pole Upside said:
I'm not sure I believe that Ortiz has any real pull to help sway Lester in this situation, but one has to admit that he seems to have influenced Hanley and Sandoval to come to town. That may be a Latin American heritage bonus, which wouldn't help with Lester, but wouldn't a guy who has been through the wars with Ortiz put some kind of internal value on having a guy like that on your side? That's something that another team can't offer, and might matter a lot to Lester.
This is all complete speculation, but it would be nice to ascribe some type of edge for the Red Sox solely because Ortiz wears the uniform and has a mountain of credibility and respect-especially among his current and recent teammates.
This is all complete speculation, but it would be nice to ascribe some type of edge for the Red Sox solely because Ortiz wears the uniform and has a mountain of credibility and respect-especially among his current and recent teammates.
Well, if that piece from Rosenthal is true, I think the Sox have to sail away from the dock as suggested upthread. It's like being back in high school and asking a girl to the dance, and she's pretty sure she'll go with you, but.....at some point the hot cheerleader who's stringing you along gets her place taken by the girl next door and you go to the dance with her instead.
See you later, Jon, but we might not have room or money for you.
See you later, Jon, but we might not have room or money for you.
Takes a little time to see what the Dodgers will do and how that may or may not impact the offers of others, I imagine.
Why are people so worried about the timing? I want a resolution as much as anyone but the fact that he hasn't decided by Dec. 4 doesn't necessarily mean anything. And it certainly shouldn't cause Ben to give up and go make a stupid offer to Shields or something.
Yes, that is the idea, and if businesses tactics could be patented, the MFYs would own this one in baseball. You let the market form and mature. Then you come in with a market topping offer with a short fuse that cannot be shopped. You have contacts throughout the sport and with them you keep tabs on things to get the timing right.manny said:
Can't speak for others, but no decision before the meetings start worries me that it sort of limits what they can do at the meetings.glennhoffmania said:
I'm not sure how limited they'd be. We're not moving assets for Lester, so it's not like a trade is going to preclude later deal. I also don't see us trading for Hamels regardless, so that's not an issue. Basically any move we'd make at the winter meetings, with the possible exception of a deal for Greinke, would be for an asset compemtary to Lester as opposed to a one or the other type.NJ_Sox_Fan said:
I also think Ben has more information than we do and will be operating with a pretty good sense of whether or not Lester will be back with the Sox.
One would hope that BC et al are realistic about the prospects of Lester's return and would fix a point in time where the collective decision to move on is made. Just like everyone else I'm just about at the point where I won't have a hard time making my peace with Lester signing elsewhere. There are other options out there - I'd just assume the Sox get on with it.
I think that Lester's decision certainly impacts the Sox plans regarding other potential acquisition targets, especially when money has to be factored in. I don't think the Sox engage in meaningful discussions on a Hamels deal unless they know they have Lester or they don't. They could certainly move forward with deals that aren't that financially impactful, but the Lester situation does have a bearing on what else they might do. I hope they get an answer before the meetings start, even if it is to say-he's eliminated the Sox as candidates, and will choose between 2-3 other suitors. That information helps.
I still think he's coming back.
I still think he's coming back.
OnWisc said:
Right. And barring a crazy offer, Shields isn't signing until he can shop his services to the teams who lose out on Lester. I want a quick resolution as much as anybody, but I don''t think letting it go another week hurts the Sox at all.
It may be that Lester is the No.1 they want and if he doesn't sign with the Sox, they will trade for a No.1 vs. Scherzer or Shields. So, it may hold up trades until he's signed.OnWisc said:
I agree, but I don't see any No. 1 trade targets that would be "replacements" for Lester outside of Greinke or Hamels. Guys like Shark or Cashner who could still end up as our Opening Day starter I view more as complementary pieces who wouldn't prevent us from subsequently acquiring Lester as well.4-6-3 said:
A trade made before a Lester decision may also signal that the Red Sox have options beyond Lester, and that they aren't being held captive by his situation. I like the pre-emptive deal angle for lots of reasons, but it may well be that such a move is our best avenue anyway.
I'd like the decision sooner but you don't walk away from Lester until and unless you make a trade or sign someone else.
You don't say "Sorry we're pulling the offer." You simply begin to engage other teams.
The Sox can juggle more than one ball.
You don't say "Sorry we're pulling the offer." You simply begin to engage other teams.
The Sox can juggle more than one ball.
There is a money issue, though. They might not want to pay 2 pitchers $22m+ per year, so Hamels might only be an option if there's no Lester. And maybe they like Hamels as option B over others.
The Red Sox know roughly what it'll take to sign Lester and they know what their ceiling is to get him. For all we know, the negotiations are already above what they are willing to spend. The have a finite amount of money and prospects to sign Lester, and they may (and should) start to explore contingencies because for all we know they are already above what they are willing to pay, and they know that all a longer process will do is make the price go up.
And this is why I'm not sweating what they do with Lester and/or how they upgrade the staff.DrewDawg said:
There is no way they moved Lackey and Lester at last year's deadline without having contingency plans A-K lined up for this year.
They almost certainly know what it takes to acquire any available pitcher via trade but don't want to pay the prices until each scenario starts to unfold and they need to.
The likelihood that Lester is "worth" the money in the final year or two goes down as the dollars go up. But next offseason, if the Sox are in the market for a FA pitcher, they'll be paying the "market rate" set this offseason by Lester and/or Scherzer. They may escape the trouble of paying Lester a lot of money in years when he is no longer effective, but the only way to avoid that forever is, essentially, to not bid on top free agents. Rodriguez was a rare case where he wasn't quickly topped as the highest paid player, but he's now been topped.mr_smith02 said:
It continues to seem as though the consensus is that Lester may be worth $25 million next year, and the year after, but agreeing to pay a 37-year old pitcher $25 million, years in advance, is foolhardy.
But if someone agrees, then Scherzer is likely to get at least $25 million as a 36-year old (and maybe as a 37-year old). Then next year, why would Cueto, Zimmerman, Price not look for comparable money (maybe they are less good, but it's another year of inflation, and free agency lives on bidding wars and a single team getting dumb.) Strasburg after that? if anyone signs Lester, committing that money, it becomes the new market rate for a pitcher of that level. The Red Sox, on their own, can't hold back the market. No team can. That's why the owners colluded all those years ago.
Ken Rosenthal 
@Ken_Rosenthal Follow
Sources: Lester decision unlikely before winter meetings.
8:38 PM - 4 Dec 2014
@Ken_Rosenthal FollowSources: Lester decision unlikely before winter meetings.
8:38 PM - 4 Dec 2014
twothousandone said:
Agreed, but what if the Sox FO prefers next year's FA class to this year's class? That is, they project guys to be worth $25 MM per and they don't see that for Lester. In all likelihood Lester or Scherzer won't be worth $20 MM per in the last 2 years of their contracts. If you could sign them today for that at 6 years you'd do it in a heartbeat. I think if Lester signs for 6/~130 or a bit above we'll all be happy. An extra year and/or heading to 6/150+ then it might be more prudent to go to plan B and then decide whether to re-load our Ace position in 2016.
I think their reasoning is that $20 MM/year is an overpay starting from year 1 potentially. Let's not forget that Jon had a pretty mediocre stretch that ended only two years back.
Edit: Typo
joe dokes said:
This is not true. It is easily the most active week of trades in the offseason. It is far easier to negotiate with people when everyone is in the same spot and you can do face to faces.
TomRicardo said:
Very true .. There was also a movement a few (many?) years ago to ban agents from the meetings because owners feared that the confluence of Team Execs and Agents tended to inflate FA signings.
I think it only lasted for a year or so ..
(Edit: had a look around on google and couldn't find anything iike this. Anyone else remember something like this? )
EllisTheRimMan said:
For nostalgia's sake.
| Split | W | L | W-L% | ERA | G | GS | GF | CG | SHO | SV | IP | H | R | ER | HR | BB | IBB | SO | HBP | BK | WP | BF | WHIP | SO9 | SO/W |
| Sept/Oct | 1 | 3 | .250 | 5.40 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31.2 | 35 | 19 | 19 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 143 | 1.611 | 9.1 | 2.00 |
| April/March | 1 | 2 | .333 | 4.65 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 31.0 | 28 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 128 | 1.355 | 6.7 | 1.64 |
| May | 2 | 2 | .500 | 4.91 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 36.2 | 43 | 23 | 20 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 25 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 159 | 1.391 | 6.1 | 3.13 |
| June | 2 | 1 | .667 | 4.01 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33.2 | 38 | 17 | 15 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 143 | 1.277 | 8.3 | 6.20 |
| July | 0 | 3 | .000 | 9.36 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25.0 | 33 | 27 | 26 | 8 | 13 | 0 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 119 | 1.840 | 9.7 | 2.08 |
| August | 3 | 3 | .500 | 3.59 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 42.2 | 36 | 17 | 17 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 172 | 1.148 | 7.4 | 2.69 |
| Sept/Oct | 1 | 3 | .250 | 3.96 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36.1 | 38 | 17 | 16 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 155 | 1.459 | 6.2 | 1.67 |
| April/March | 4 | 0 | 1.000 | 3.11 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37.2 | 31 | 14 | 13 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 33 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 155 | 1.142 | 7.9 | 2.75 |
| May | 2 | 2 | .500 | 3.92 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 41.1 | 37 | 19 | 18 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 32 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 171 | 1.161 | 7.0 | 2.91 |
| June | 2 | 2 | .500 | 7.62 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28.1 | 38 | 24 | 24 | 8 | 16 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 132 | 1.906 | 7.3 | 1.44 |
Amazing what a 9 month turnaround + some playoff dominance can do for our expectations.
joe dokes said:
Red Sox lead pack of winners from winter meetings
It should be noted that that's from the Chicago Tribune, so it's not homer rah-rah-ism. Sadly, it's about the coup that was Crawford and Gonzalez. :astonished:
Perhaps I'm naive but I feel like 6/130 is a good offer and if Lester can get more and needs more he should take it some place else. While next year's team has some rather large question marks I'd prefer to trust the development of our deep farm system than overpay in free agency or make a trade for a market deal like Hamels. I'd prefer that 6/130 was going to a pitcher's prime years which I think have already passed for Lester.
To put it another way when I look at an organization like the Cardinals or Giants I see organizations that have trusted the development of their going cost controlled players. The end result of that seems to be sustained playoff success.
To put it another way when I look at an organization like the Cardinals or Giants I see organizations that have trusted the development of their going cost controlled players. The end result of that seems to be sustained playoff success.
Yes, but the Cardinals for one example, trusted the development of their younger players while still having first Chris Carpenter then Adam Wainwright to front the rotation. I once thought that Clay Buchholz could hold a similar role. I don't now. Do you?
The Giants hierarchy has been less clear but Cain, Lincecum and Bumgarner have been at the top of the rotation while fill ins were around them. Is Clay Buchholz a 2012 Cain or 2014 Bumgarner? I don't think so either.
So, I think it's false to try to draw an analogy which says that letting Lester go is creating a situation similar to what the Cardinals and Giants have done recently.
The Giants hierarchy has been less clear but Cain, Lincecum and Bumgarner have been at the top of the rotation while fill ins were around them. Is Clay Buchholz a 2012 Cain or 2014 Bumgarner? I don't think so either.
So, I think it's false to try to draw an analogy which says that letting Lester go is creating a situation similar to what the Cardinals and Giants have done recently.
selahsean said:
I think this is true in general, but the competition in the AL East has been a different animal all together compared to the NL Central/West. I'm not just talking about the Yankees ludicrously disproportionate payroll, but the other 3 teams are run pretty damn well, putting a lot of pressure on the Sox to exploit their financial advantages... Both to keep pace with the MFY and not having to rely only on baseball IQ to hold off TB, TOR and BAL
There are no Padres or Cubs to kick around annually and the rest of the teams excluding the Dodgers aren't exactly smartly run nor financially impressive. Until last year I'll give you that BAL was a mess compared to the other AL East teams, but they just won 96 games, so maybe they're finally back.
More importantly, how many of our young pitchers are a safe bet to be even average next season?
I don't really have a ton of faith in any of Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo or Workman to be a net positive in 2015. RDLR might be a solid starter, but he's probably better suited to the pen. Owens and Rodriguez aren't ready yet. Brian Johnson hasn't pitched at the major league level yet.
I wouldn't rely on any of them to be even 2013 Dempster, let alone a (good) Buchholz or Lester.
I don't really have a ton of faith in any of Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo or Workman to be a net positive in 2015. RDLR might be a solid starter, but he's probably better suited to the pen. Owens and Rodriguez aren't ready yet. Brian Johnson hasn't pitched at the major league level yet.
I wouldn't rely on any of them to be even 2013 Dempster, let alone a (good) Buchholz or Lester.
Not that they need to do so in order to sign Lester, but Dodgers seem close to trading Kemp and his contract away.
Hank Scorpio said:
I don't really even care. The way I see it, Webster and RDLR get the shots at the starting job and they're just keeping it warm for Owens later in the season. If they can be close to average between them, that's more than we can really expect from a fifth starter.
We get Lester back, he'll be better. We get a #2, he'll be better. Buchholz will either be awesome or terrible. Kelly will be roughly average. If we get good Buchholz and the guys at the end aren't terrible, we're easily a playoff team.
joe dokes said:
An issue for who?
For Lester, probably not.
For teams not getting Lester, sort of.
For teams with arms to trade, absolutely they lose leverage as well as a feeding frenzy.
For second tier FAs, absolutely for the same reason.
Schrezer is the only one really not affected by Lester holding out longer.
Rasputin said:
Agree 100%. The offense looks to be very good to great and therefore, the pitching needs to be good to average for a shot at the playoffs. Things break our way (injuries, performance, close games) and we are easily in, if not (like last year) then we're out. The same would be true if we signed both Lester and Scherzer, for example. They would definitely increase our probability of success but would not guarantee anything. I also think the same is true if we don't get Lester and are stuck with plan B (Shields and Porcello, for example). I think Buchholz will be good-great next year so just staying healthy and giving us close to 200 IP is my biggest concern with him.
That could very well be the case for what the front office is thinking.. But, unless I am mistaken, that is not the argument dominating this thread. This thread says it's the money years out that is the problem. And, in turn, I am saying that while it may be a problem, it will also become "the market," if Lester, then Scherzer get it. Top notch starting pitchers will then expect to be able to make $25 million at age 37, even if they are negotiating for a contract the begins at age 30.EllisTheRimMan said:
In the pinned WAR thread, Rev confidently suggests WAR is now worth more than $5 million per because it's an equation. Of course, that numerator (I think) of that equation needs to be adjusted as new contracts are signed -- including whatever Lester and Scherzer sign for. So with inflation and baseball inflation, a win will surely be worth more money in a few years, because salaries always go up. "Lester isn't worth it," is certainly a defendable position. "No one is worth it" or more appropriately "we can't have any confidence a 37-year old will be worth it in five years" ignores that once someone gets it, a few rough comparables the next year will certainly get it, meaning many more will be "worth it."
Now that I think about (and have edited this thing three times), I am saying the Red Sox need to consider cost per WAR inflation when making their offer, and SoSH should include it in the debate. What's the rate of inflation? What will a win be worth in 2019?
soxhop411 said:
The Yankees signing Miller just reinforces that teams are playing with monopoly money! The Sox go $38 and the Yankees go to $40. If Miller is the closer for the next 4 years, he will be worth it. He is hugely overpaid if he ends up as a glorified set up man. Nobody knows if he can close because he never tried before. It could have been worse. The Sox could have kept Miller for the rest of 2014 without stealing Eduardo Rodriguez from the Orioles. With our 20-20 vision, it’s easy to see that Miller would still go to the Yankees with the Sox having nothing to show for him at all. For whatever reason, the Sox preferred to bring back ancient Uehara for less money and a shorter term. This was risky too. At least, his contract will come off the books by the time Kojii is 40 (soon enough).
Paying that much money means that the Yankees can buy whoever else they want to be their new pitching ace too. Lester or Scherzer for this year? Price for next year? The Sox will never win a direct bidding war with the Yankees and they should never try to. The Yankees have more leverage to bid up prices for the Sox than the other way around.
As always, the Sox will need to spend more smartly rather than simply spend more. Direct bidding wars with either the Yankees or Dodgers probably can’t be won. If Lester comes back to Boston, it won’t be because the Sox are the highest bidders according to every report. If the Sox are in the ballpark with the top bidders, Lester will come back simply because the intangibles are worth it to him. If it doesn’t happen, it was never going to in the first place. At this point, it’s anybody’s guess as to what Lester will decide. The Sox will be extremely lucky to retain him.
Perhaps the scarcity of quality free agents and their exorbitant prices will work as a blessing in disguise when the Sox make the needed trades to fill out their roster. The quick acquisitions of Hanley and Panda for the likely remainder of their prime years of production will look better when other teams pay too much for too long to other lesser players.
There is a scarcity of aces (as always), so the prices soar too high for too long. Look what happened to the Phillies with both Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. Lester is an exception for the Sox (if they buy the 5th and 6th years of his new contract) but the odds are, those years will resemble Lee, Halladay and even Pedro’s (Mets) performances.
Hording their youngsters but sacrificing Cespedes and a few of their second tier prospects for Porcello or whoever else still in their primes they can acquire for arbitration prices with reasonable remaining service time are probably much better acquisitions going forward. Lester to the Yankees or Dodgers could be a blessing in disguise if the bidding goes into unreasonable territory.
Cubs offer is more than $140 apparently
The Cubs have actually made an offer higher than the $130-$140 million that has been reported, according to a source familiar with the situation.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=11983586&city=chicago&src=desktop
The Cubs have actually made an offer higher than the $130-$140 million that has been reported, according to a source familiar with the situation.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=11983586&city=chicago&src=desktop
Hard to say. After stagnating through much of the 2000s, WAR/$ (and overall spending) has been soaring on the back of a ton of local TV money. It's probably unlikely to continue at quite this level, but $8m or $9m by 2019 is certainly possible.twothousandone said:
The issue isn't being worth it at 36 or 37 though. I don't think teams actually expect the player to be worth the contract in each year; the idea behind these FA deals is to capture enough surplus value at the start to even out the eventual overpay.
So then, ivanvamp has already started the equation:BarrettsHiddenBall said:
It just depends on the final salary, and how predicted value of WAR relates to the actuals. 2020 isn't all that bad if the market prices things at $10 million/win.ivanvamp said:
Miller and Lester are different for a lot of reasons, but I think it is informative that the Sox decided that 4 years was just too much for Miller. They are not afraid to stop when the money/years gets unreasonable, even if that means a guy like Miller goes to the MFY. The way things are headed with Lester, I suspect the same thing may (and should, frankly) happen.
- Status