Tyrone Biggums said:It would really kill the off season if the Sox weren't able to bring Lester back.
Lester is the only top of the rotation starter that would require Boston no assets other than cash. Everyone else requires young talent and picks. Combine that with his big game reputation and his ability to pitch in Boston and it makes too much sense to close the deal. It also allows the Sox to use Cespedes to acquire another top SP that can interchange with Lester at the 1 spot.pockmeister said:
Would it? I'd agree with the statement "It would really kill the off season if the Sox weren't able to add a top of the rotation starter", but if that pitcher isn't Lester, my off-season isn't killed. Lester has brought a lot of good things to the Sox in the past, but I'm very nervous about paying for his decline years. Yes, he's likely to be an effective pitcher in the AL East for another few season, but the arm has many miles behind it, and any more than a four year deal probably means paying big money for tail-end of career decline seasons. If that fits the payroll structure of the Sox going forward, then OK, but it will likely limit future flexibility and options. There's been plenty of analysis on this board (and in this thread) to indicate that most long term contracts for over-30 year old pitchers have pretty mixed outcomes, and there's nothing particular about Lester that would make me any more confident about his durability relative to his peer group.
Based on the work done so far, I have some faith that the front office will be addressing the rotation issues. If Lester is the answer, then that's fine. If it's someone else comparable, obtained through a palatable free-agent deal or appropriate prospect trade, that's also fine. My off season only gets "killed" if Spring Training comes around and the pitching options look broadly similar to how they look now. And that would seem to be a dereliction of duty by the front office, hence it isn't going to happen.
Ah, I get the strategy. They'll force the rest of the league to surrender in November!Hank Scorpio said:If the Red Sox get this done, I can't imagine the reaction around MLB. Other teams must be absolutely stunned. BC is running a blitzkrieg on the free agent market.
1. Their top pick is protected, so that is less important if they went after Shields / Scherzer. They have also already lost their second rounder from signing Sandoval (which is going to be around pick #50 anyway). The compensation is a very minor consideration.Tyrone Biggums said:Lester is the only top of the rotation starter that would require Boston no assets other than cash. Everyone else requires young talent and picks. Combine that with his big game reputation and his ability to pitch in Boston and it makes too much sense to close the deal. It also allows the Sox to use Cespedes to acquire another top SP that can interchange with Lester at the 1 spot.
Toe Nash said:1. Their top pick is protected, so that is less important if they went after Shields / Scherzer. They have also already lost their second rounder from signing Sandoval (which is going to be around pick #50 anyway). The compensation is a very minor consideration.
2. They have a glut of young players and we've been saying you need to cash in some of them while they still have value. Given the Panda signing and assuming they add two starters (likely) the following prospects have nowhere to play in the near future: Cecchini, Marrero, Coyle, Shaw, JBJ, and a couple of the glut of pitchers are going to have to go as well. They need to make decisions about who they want to keep as depth and use the rest as trade chips if they are going for it this year.
3. They still have a good deal of financial flexibility but with the two big signings it's not as much as before (duh). "Just cash" is not necessarily the way to go at this point especially if you want to spend "just cash" on Miller, other relievers, backup catcher, etc.
I agree I would prefer Lester to Shields or Scherzer (assuming Scherzer is going to be more expensive), but I'm not sure I'd prefer him to swinging a trade for someone equally good, which I think they have the assets to do.
Yes on Coyle and the AAAA pitching, maybe on JBJ, but not so fast there on Cecchini, Marrero, and Shaw. After 2015 we have Bogaerts, Sandoval, and Ramirez to fill four positions, and we'll have DH to fill pretty soon as well. We're not as deep as we look right now in the infield, because much of our infield depth is headed for the left end of the spectrum with a bullet.Toe Nash said:2. They have a glut of young players and we've been saying you need to cash in some of them while they still have value. Given the Panda signing and assuming they add two starters (likely) the following prospects have nowhere to play in the near future: Cecchini, Marrero, Coyle, Shaw, JBJ, and a couple of the glut of pitchers are going to have to go as well.
If they are stunned, my friend, it is at the sheer desperation, and the backtracking. After all, these signings say to them: we don't believe in what we have, or our vaunted prospect depth. We don't believe in Cespedes.Hank Scorpio said:If the Red Sox get this done, I can't imagine the reaction around MLB. Other teams must be absolutely stunned. BC is running a blitzkrieg on the free agent market.
someoneanywhere said:If they are stunned, my friend, it is at the sheer desperation, and the backtracking. After all, these signings say to them: we don't believe in what we have, or our vaunted prospect depth. We don't believe in Cespedes.
In paying for these guys you've devalued your trading assets.
someoneanywhere said:If they are stunned, my friend, it is at the sheer desperation, and the backtracking. After all, these signings say to them: we don't believe in what we have, or our vaunted prospect depth. We don't believe in Cespedes.
In paying for these guys you've devalued your trading assets.
Agreed if they are trying to trade them now.someoneanywhere said:If they are stunned, my friend, it is at the sheer desperation, and the backtracking. After all, these signings say to them: we don't believe in what we have, or our vaunted prospect depth. We don't believe in Cespedes.
In paying for these guys you've devalued your trading assets.
Hee Sox Choi said:I'm surprised we signed Hanley, you know, with the Dodgers not believing in him enough to make him a better offer.
The corresponding NESN article has an old video of BradfordCaskNFappin said:https://twitter.com/redsoxinfo/status/537262418506706944
link to tweet
jasail said:I'm more surprised we signed him given his reported attitude problems.
jasail said:
Both teams likely do not view him as a SS moving forward, so he was going to have to play somewhere else. The Dodgers have a crowded OF and are struggling to manage playing time with their 3 overpaid aging veterans and two young studs. Additionally, they are committed to Uribe for next year at 3B. So it may be a product of having space. The Sox can use him in LF this year and then transition him to a corner infield position or DH over the course of his contract.
I'm more surprised we signed him given his reported attitude problems.
You're right, it wasn't an issue. I live in LA and hear about the Dodgers constantly and never heard any issues about Hanley. I asked a couple Dodger fan friends yesterday about Hanley and they thought he fit in well and was a good player. Across the board, they didn't like his SS defense, at all.JimD said:
The Dodgers went 272-214 during Hanley's three years in LA - his attitude couldn't have been that big of an issue.
Hee Sox Choi said:You're right, it wasn't an issue. I live in LA and hear about the Dodgers constantly and never heard any issues about Hanley. I asked a couple Dodger fan friends yesterday about Hanley and they thought he fit in well and was a good player. Across the board, they didn't like his SS defense, at all.
I think this was a great signing. I put this in another thread, but Hanley has a higher lifetime wRC+ than Tulo. Think about that. That's a serious bat.
When a player is the focus of the team as Hanley was in Miami, every transgression gets magnified. When you are one of the cast, as he was in LA, it's easier to just live your life without every mistake blown out of proportion.JohntheBaptist said:
I'm in LA too and I remember thinking to myself how odd it was how thoroughly he got ignored around here, though that's a function of having Puig, Kershaw, Gonzalez et al on the same team.
Honestly, sounds like he might just be a little full of himself and it took his co-workers a little time to get used to it. It really seems like a complete non-issue, especially if he's got a close friend waiting for him in the clubhouse.
jasail said:I'm more surprised we signed him given his reported attitude problems.
someoneanywhere said:If they are stunned, my friend, it is at the sheer desperation, and the backtracking. After all, these signings say to them: we don't believe in what we have, or our vaunted prospect depth. We don't believe in Cespedes.
In paying for these guys you've devalued your trading assets.
67WasBest said:When a player is the focus of the team as Hanley was in Miami, every transgression gets magnified. When you are one of the cast, as he was in LA, it's easier to just live your life without every mistake blown out of proportion.
To be fair, when he broke the Hanley deal it was crickets for hoursshepard50 said:Silence on this today. The kid, well, I'm disappointed.
Hee Sox Choi said:I'm surprised we signed Hanley, you know, with the Dodgers not believing in him enough to make him a better offer.
It's early yet. He can't stay up 24 hours a day!shepard50 said:Silence on this today. The kid, well, I'm disappointed.
Maybe he`s waiting for recessshepard50 said:Silence on this today. The kid, well, I'm disappointed.
Try what? The QO would have been their only "move" in the past, and even that wasn't available. I don't think you can start a conversation about commitments that your owner wouldn't even dream of approving. I certainly don't have any insider info but I would guess there's a professional code to free agent maneuvering that calls for teams to have at least some legit interest at the market rate before scheduling a meeting.MentalDisabldLst said:
Plenty of talk about Hanley in the Hanley thread. Both of them, really. Including this supposed thing.
Anyway, did Oakland even make a half-effort to retain Lester? They can't make a QO because they acquired him at the deadline, but did they even try?
MartyBarrettMVP said:
Scherzer might realize he's the second choice for the Lester suitors and waiting for Jon to set the market.BoSoxFink said:Is it me or does it seem weird that we have had all this movement on Lester but nary a word of anything going on with Max Scherzer?
A meeting? Next week? Well, I guess that's checkmate. Lester *can't* sign a contract now if he has a meeting scheduled!nattysez said:Old friend Jim Bowden:
pjr said:Jake Wesley MLB@mlb_nl_al 9m9 minutes ago
UPDATE: since hearing Red Sox 6/130 offer to Lester, Cubs have topped offer. Don't think sox want to negotiate.
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537336540331253762
pjr said:Jake Wesley MLB@mlb_nl_al 9m9 minutes ago
UPDATE: since hearing Red Sox 6/130 offer to Lester, Cubs have topped offer. Don't think sox want to negotiate.
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537336540331253762
H78 said:Seriously guys, at the same time a meeting with the Giants is leaked next week there's a Tweet about how the Sox are balking at 6/130. Lester wants to come back here and he's trying to get Boston to offer their absolute best and final offer...as he should. If someone else blows it away, maybe he'll go there, but he wants to see what the Sox top offer is first. This is all posturing.
I'm guessing it's likely the Cubs would go up a little more as well and this could go on forever.I don't see why the Sox wouldn't just top that. A million per season seems like a very stupid thing to get hung up on.