Trading Jon Lester (news and speculation thread)
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
- Status
I remember the ARod portfolio Boras created. Don't these agents have better things to do with their time? Has any team/GM signed a player because of a literal portfolio? (well, maybe Ruben Amaro)
No, it's not controversial.
But it is hard for me to believe that Lackey would be happy honoring his contract just because Lester is still in Boston.
In other words ... one has nothing to do with the other.
But it is hard for me to believe that Lackey would be happy honoring his contract just because Lester is still in Boston.
In other words ... one has nothing to do with the other.
What was the Sox' evaluation of him? Did I miss something, other than him being a big part of last year's postseason run and being in the rotation again this year?EvilEmpire said:
I have no doubt Lackey won't be "happy" pitching for 500K next year. I can't imagine any veteran who is still playing well would be. The question is what, exactly, he would do about it? He doesn't really have a choice but to honor the contract (it's been previously detailed that if he sat out the year he would still be under contract when he returned), and pitching poorly and/or with an obvious bad attitude (hello, Doubront) wouldn't be in his best interests moving forward.
My mistake. I thought you were discussing Lackey, which is why I didn't understand the reference.EvilEmpire said:
I have no idea. The market will probably give us an indication of what he is worth going forward in a few months though. I'm pretty confident it will be substantially more than what he was offered this past spring. You?drleather2001 said:
No the market will give you an indication of what he will be paid going forward. Worth we won't know until he's well into his contract.EvilEmpire said:
EvilEmpire said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the Red Sox were making their first offer after a Cy Young caliber season, and not two slightly above average ones, they would've come up with a number significantly higher than 4/70.
He's made something north of $100 million dollars over the course of his career. He doesn't have to do anything. The trade request suggests he'd like to keep playing (and most likely renegotiate his contract) with another team rather than retire, although whoever he ends up with will have to make it worth his while from a competitive and/or financial point of view.Sox and Rocks said:
Edit--to add, that the possibility that he'd rather not stay with a rebuilding team who will likely be sticking to a two-year proposal rather than three years is completely unsurprising. His personality doesn't have anything to do with it.
I don't think Lackey retiring is realistic. Obviously, I don't know the guy from Adam, but from the outside, he seems too competitive and enjoys playing baseball too much for thatP'tucket said:
Valuation was the first word I used, but I think you understood what I meant.Cellar-Door said:
I think Lackey would be far more likely to honor his contract for a team that had a chance to win. They are trading Lackey because they're building a longer bridge, because if they only think. Lester is worth 4/$70, then it's hard to imagine they value any of the reasonably similar free agents high enough to win the bidding for them this winter. Moreover, because the new philosophy is to never sign someone over 30 to a long term contract, they'll not want to offer a fair market value extension to Lackey that supersedes the gimmick option in 2015 and then they'll get outbid for Lackey in 2016. So, by backward induction, trade him now to a team that doesn't have their head up their ass.sackamano said:
I think you're probably right. But the prospect of making the league minimum for a 75 win team surely would be a test of that hypothesis.Sox and Rocks said:
If he was confused, so was I. "Cost" and "worth" are completely different concepts. What he pulls in during the off-season will be what he costs. What he proves to be worth is completely different.EvilEmpire said:
You're right. It's far more likely that another team will offer more money to a 36- year old Lackey than the Red Sox.
I'm OK with that p91.
I'm OK with that p91.
Plympton91 said:
Wow. I dont know if I'm more shocked that you spent the time to write this or that you actually believe this.
We have ZERO clue what the Sox actually offered Lester so sticking at the 4/70 mark is cherry picking at its finest. We have ZERO clue that the Sox new policy is to never sign anyone over 30 to a long term contract. We do know that the Sox hedged their bets with Lackey by adding on the 2015 option for the contract. This is the contract that Lackey agreed to and signed under free will. It wasnt a gimmick option at the time and it isnt one now.
It's possible, likely even, the Sox won't be a 75 win team next year. There is no reason they should be. But even if they aren't a legit contender, I am sure the Sox would be happy to trade Lackey at this time next year, or sooner, and given the low value of his contract, there would be multiple teams lining up to acquire him.P'tucket said:
The point is I don't think the Lackey contract situation should pressure the Sox in any way to do something now. If they get a good offer, by all means trade him, otherwise keep him around. Unlike with Lester, there will be other chances with Lackey
Baseball Report @NickHamelinMLB 4m
According to @jonmorosi he believes that Jon Lester will be traded tonight to either Pittsburgh or to LA. Stay tuned.
But... But...
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 2m
Dodgers GM Ned Colletti to reporters: "We're not in the market to trade any of the three (top prospects - Pederson, Seager, Urias), period"
According to @jonmorosi he believes that Jon Lester will be traded tonight to either Pittsburgh or to LA. Stay tuned.
But... But...
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 2m
Dodgers GM Ned Colletti to reporters: "We're not in the market to trade any of the three (top prospects - Pederson, Seager, Urias), period"
EvilEmpire said:
I wouldn't be surpised if Jon Lester ends up being worth closer to what the Sox original offer was compared to what he ends up getting from Hank and Hal in a few months.
There's a huge difference between a player subject to the reserve clause holding out, and a player holding out during a contract he signed as a free agent. I think Lackey's options are to retire, or to suck it up and play.Sox and Rocks said:
That said, if he'll be unhappy here for whatever reason, the FO might be well served to move him. And the FO might welcome an extension that would allow them to manage the CBT impact of money they're likely to give Lackey anyway (I.e., he's getting a QO after next season unless he suffers a major injury or improbable collapse, so guaranteeing most/all that money now might be worth spreading AAV over two years).
Also, Lackey becomes a 10/5 guy after the season, so if the FO thinks that minimum option for next season is worth more to someone else than to them, this is their last chance to cash in (as Lackey would certainly condition his consent to any offseason trade on an extension).
This made me turn the channel, and now Harold Reynolds' voice has unexpectedly entered my living room.Ferm Sheller said:
Damn you!
Please accept my sincerest apologies. I think they're waiting for the KC-Minn game to get over before going to Rosenthal.Sox and Rocks said:
That's a great point about Lackey gaining 10/5 status Mauf, might suggest why they are at least reportedly being so aggressive now.
https://twitter.com/NickHamelinMLB/status/494681423471976450"]4mmabrowndog said:
link to tweet[/url]
According to @jonmorosi he believes that Jon Lester will be traded tonight to either Pittsburgh or to LA. Stay tuned.
But... But...
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber [URL="https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/494682018975084544
https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/494682018975084544"]2m
link to tweet[/url]
Dodgers GM Ned Colletti to reporters: "We're not in the market to trade any of the three (top prospects - Pederson, Seager, Urias), period"
I would have very little problem rooting for Jon Lester and the Pittsburgh Pirates in the postseason.
wibi said:
Zero clue is too strong, I think. As has been well-documented here, all the reports coalesce around there being only one offer at 4/70, but lots of discussions between the parties so each has a sense of the ballpark position of the other.
And there were these recent telling reports from Bradford:
"If the Sox were to make an offer in line with what the market has produced in terms of recent contracts for pitchers of Lester’s status, the source added, such an offer would permit an efficient resolution as to whether the basis for an in-season extension existed, thus avoiding concerns about potential distractions for either the pitcher or his teammates. ...
Per one source, the chances of the Red Sox re-engaging in talks with Lester’s representatives prior to the deadline aren’t likely. With that in mind, and the Sox still not approaching Lester with an offer in line with the current market value, the chances of the lefty being dealt seem to be increasing."
It is a good point; still, though, Lackey will have value in the offseason and at next year's deadline. There is no reason to force a trade now if the value isn't therePlympton91 said:
Rosenthal on MLB Network just now: "going to get traded, just a matter of where and when" in reference to Lester.
Then during the commercial break:
RT @Ken_Rosenthal: #STLCards, #Pirates pushing hardest for Lester, sources tell me and @jonmorosi. #Dodgers still involved.
RT @Ken_Rosenthal: #STLCards, #Pirates pushing hardest for Lester, sources tell me and @jonmorosi. #Dodgers still involved.
Per Rosenthal on MLBNetwork just now - Cards and Pirates are pushing the hardest with LA still in it
Rosenthal: package is "undefined" and Red Sox are looking for "best package" possible.
BREAKING NEWS
BREAKING NEWS
dcmissle said:
They just used him to get schmucks like me to be tuned in while they aired 150 commercials. I fooled them, though. I read SoSH while the commercials blathered in the background. Can't tell you what a single one was trying to sell me.
- Status