Has anyone from the Red Sox ever said such a thing?soxhop411 said:“@pgammo: @pgammo 2015, Dodgers feel they need another starter to win it all and when Bostonians talk ”hometown discount“ it is insulting to Lester…”
Has anyone from the Red Sox ever said such a thing?soxhop411 said:“@pgammo: @pgammo 2015, Dodgers feel they need another starter to win it all and when Bostonians talk ”hometown discount“ it is insulting to Lester…”
I don't think so and I find it hard to believe that Lester would get pissed off about fans wishing for a discount.LahoudOrBillyC said:Has anyone from the Red Sox ever said such a thing?
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: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 LucEdit
Sources: Lester decision unlikely before winter meetings.
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:I don't really understand this "late entrant" angle to the Lester free agency. The Dodgers obviously knew he was going to be a free agent and did their homework. Why wait? Is the idea to come in late after other offers are already in, top them, and hope to sign him quickly? Isn't there a rather significant risk that he signs before your late push? Why would you risk that for such an important investment?
Or, is there a possibility that they were involved all along and the media only found out recently?
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: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.
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: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.
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.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.
OnWisc 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.
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'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.
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.
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: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.
And this is why I'm not sweating what they do with Lester and/or how they upgrade the staff.DrewDawg said: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.
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:With each passing Tweet this is feeling more and more like an overpay this board will be not too happy with in a few years.
twothousandone said:
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.
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.
With free agent Jon Lester expected to make a decision soon on where he will take his talents, Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz had a message for his bosses: "Now is the time to step up, man up, and try to make the guy happy."
Ortiz made the appeal for his team to sign Lester in speaking with reporters at his charity golf tournament in the Dominican Republic on Thursday.
"This is a guy who loves Boston, so if I'm the Red Sox, I do whatever it takes to keep a guy like that because that's a guy who brings everything he has every day to the field," Ortiz said. "Not only that, but he cares about the city.
"He was devastated when he got traded, and I know that. I can personally tell you that. But this is a business, and I know he understands that."
"Most of the time we come through," Ortiz said. "I know it's a tough situation because my boy Lester, he's got a lot of people in his head right now talking to him. I always wish him the best, but hopefully we end up having him. We need him."
jasvlm said: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.
joe dokes said:
The Winter Meetings mean nothing in terms of trades. Its like saying "I hope Lester signs before the Winter Solstice." But reporters have to make The Meetings sound important or else their employers will cancel the junket.
TomRicardo 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.
EllisTheRimMan said: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.
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 |
TomRicardo 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.
joe dokes said:
Of course that sounds logical, it just doesn't square with my memory. No reasearch, though. Ultimately, though, I dont think Lester's timing will be an issue.
selahsean said: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.
Link?ArgentinaSOXfan said: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:More importantly, how many of our young pitchers are a safe bet to be even average next season?
joe dokes said:
Of course that sounds logical, it just doesn't square with my memory. No reasearch, though. Ultimately, though, I dont think Lester's timing will be an issue.
Rasputin 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.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/05/sizing-up-the-field-for-jon-lester-free-agencys-biggest-domino/Red Sox: There is some analogy to the Dan Gilbert-LeBron James situation. Remember when James left the Cavaliers, he was lambasted by Gilbert, Cleveland’s owner. Then when James became a free agent again and his heart seemed to be set on returning home, Gilbert all but bought Hallmark to send love James’ way and apologize. They got back together.
Lester certainly felt disrespected by Boston ownership. He said last offseason he would re-sign for below-market value, but the Red Sox made offers that insulted him, because they were a fraction of his worth. Then Boston traded Lester to Oakland.
However, the Red Sox realize their rotation lacks any trustworthy pieces moving forward, so ownership not only bumped up its six-year offer significantly, but met with Lester. Afterward, his agent, Seth Levinson, interestingly pointed out Red Sox officials “extended great respect to Jon.” An executive who has close ties to Boston’s front office thought that meant the sides had made nice and Lester was most comfortable with Boston – manager John Farrell used to be his pitching coach – and if offers were close, Lester would go back to Boston.
But a person involved in negotiations for the pitcher described Lester and the Red Sox as “frenemies.” Another executive said he thinks Lester’s memory is long on this issue and he still does not completely trust the Boston front office
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:
I think their reasoning is that $20 MM/year is an overpay starting from year 1 potentially. Let's not forget that Jon had a pretty mediocre stretch that ended only two years back.
soxhop411 said:http://nypost.com/2014/12/05/sizing-up-the-field-for-jon-lester-free-agencys-biggest-domino/Red Sox: There is some analogy to the Dan Gilbert-LeBron James situation. Remember when James left the Cavaliers, he was lambasted by Gilbert, Cleveland’s owner. Then when James became a free agent again and his heart seemed to be set on returning home, Gilbert all but bought Hallmark to send love James’ way and apologize. They got back together.
Lester certainly felt disrespected by Boston ownership. He said last offseason he would re-sign for below-market value, but the Red Sox made offers that insulted him, because they were a fraction of his worth. Then Boston traded Lester to Oakland.
However, the Red Sox realize their rotation lacks any trustworthy pieces moving forward, so ownership not only bumped up its six-year offer significantly, but met with Lester. Afterward, his agent, Seth Levinson, interestingly pointed out Red Sox officials “extended great respect to Jon.” An executive who has close ties to Boston’s front office thought that meant the sides had made nice and Lester was most comfortable with Boston – manager John Farrell used to be his pitching coach – and if offers were close, Lester would go back to Boston.
But a person involved in negotiations for the pitcher described Lester and the Red Sox as “frenemies.” Another executive said he thinks Lester’s memory is long on this issue and he still does not completely trust the Boston front office
Hard to say. After stagnating through much of the 2000s, WAR/$ (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:
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.
In the pinned WAR thread, Rev confidently suggests WAR is now worth more than $5 million per because it's an equation. Of course, that numerator (I think) of that equation needs to be adjusted as new contracts are signed -- including whatever Lester and Scherzer sign for. So with inflation and baseball inflation, a win will surely be worth more money in a few years, because salaries always go up. "Lester isn't worth it," is certainly a defendable position. "No one is worth it" or more appropriately "we can't have any confidence a 37-year old will be worth it in five years" ignores that once someone gets it, a few rough comparables the next year will certainly get it, meaning many more will be "worth it."
Now that I think about (and have edited this thing three times), I am saying the Red Sox need to consider cost per WAR inflation when making their offer, and SoSH should include it in the debate. What's the rate of inflation? What will a win be worth in 2019?
So then, ivanvamp has already started the equation:BarrettsHiddenBall said:Hard to say. After stagnating through much of the 2000s, WAR/$ (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.
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.
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:2015: 23 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.2m/WAR
2016: 23 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.1m/WAR
2017: 23 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2018: 23 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.2m/WAR
2019: 23 m / 1.3 WAR = 17.7m/WAR
2020: 23 m / 0.7 WAR = 32.9m/WAR