332 replies to this topic

[bohous]

The Royals are looking for to deal Myers because they want to win this year, and their main needs are SP. i don't see them going after one of our prospects. I think its more likely they'd want another major league pitcher.

or financial flexibility to sign a FA SP. I have to imagine part of KC motivation in reaching out to the Sox is not so much that they think Lester is the guy to put them over the top so much as they think Boston would be willing to deal him and absorb much of the cost. If I'm KC I'm asking the Sox for Lester + cash and Myers comes to Boston with one one (or both?) of Chen/Francour contract pinned to his sleeve. IMO the rub isn't losing Lester. It's what dead cost would the Sox be willing to take on.

[TheoShmeo]

Seriously... you know when you're making Cafardo look like the insightful, rational voice, you're really chin-deep in it.

Then again, Nicky just lined up right behind Pete Abe so they look about the same right now.

I just hope that the person who was pumping Cafardo up with information prior to the Valentine hiring isn't feeding him here too.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 27 November 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[Paradigm]

There's probably a lot of smoke around Lester's name because he's at that sweet spot in his contract where the team is deciding whether to trade him or commit to him. Even coming off of his down year, Lester would probably fetch his greatest return right now, when the acquiring team gets him for two years. Even if he won the Cy Young next year, he'd probably fetch less in a trade because he'd only have one year left on his deal.

There's been "smoke" around James Shields and Matt Garza since last offseason, which is the same two-year inflection point in their contract. This is where the trading team and the acquiring team both get the most value in the transaction, if there is a transaction.

[maufman]

or financial flexibility to sign a FA SP. I have to imagine part of KC motivation in reaching out to the Sox is not so much that they think Lester is the guy to put them over the top so much as they think Boston would be willing to deal him and absorb much of the cost. If I'm KC I'm asking the Sox for Lester + cash and Myers comes to Boston with one one (or both?) of Chen/Francour contract pinned to his sleeve. IMO the rub isn't losing Lester. It's what dead cost would the Sox be willing to take on.

The Sox would presumably be willing to pay Lester's entire 2013 salary if they weren't parting with a prospect in the deal.

Francoeur is the only obviously bad contract on the Royals' books, but if Myers is traded in a deal that doesn't include an MLB-ready OF, the Royals have no better options in RF. Bruce Chen's contract is unappealing, but so are the Royals' SP options; assuming any Lester trade would be coupled with the Sox signing a free-agent SP, Chen is worth more to KC than to us.

As I said, though, if this rumor has any legs, I think the price is Lester + Bradley/Barnes. The Royals would then seek to sign Lester to an extension, so it isn't a GFIN now move for them; even if it was, they could flip one of those prospects for someone who could help immediately.

Dayton Moore's strange obsession with Frenchy is the only reason I'm allowing myself to indulge this fantasy for so long. Myers is the sort of prospect who is normally untouchable, and while you have to worry when a prospect-hound like DM is willing to deal his best young player, I think you have to bite the bullet and take that risk if the cost is only Lester + short-term cash.

[OttoC]

Lester is only under contract though next season but the club does have an option for 2014 as long as Lester does not finish 1 or 2 in the Cy Young Award race. If he does meet the CYA criterion, then the club would be faced with with springing for an expensicve long-term contract if they wish to retain him. He also will be over 30 by then. If he has a season in 2013 that compares with those he had from 2008 through 2011, then they are faced with exercising he option and having to extend him, which won't be cheap. If he has a year like 2012, then they would buy out his option ($250K) and get nothing for him.

I don't see Lester coming back as a world beater so getting Wil Myers for him might be a good idea if it can be done without giving up prospects. Either pay Kansas City a good chunk of his salary or take another player/salary in addition to Myers from them.

[E5 Yaz]

It should come as no surprise, but the best analysis of what makes this rumor fascinating comes from Alex Speier:

http://www.weei.com/...se-dazzling-rum

http://fullcount.wee...ed-sox-in-2009/

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

As I said, though, if this rumor has any legs, I think the price is Lester + Bradley/Barnes. The Royals would then seek to sign Lester to an extension, so it isn't a GFIN now move for them; even if it was, they could flip one of those prospects for someone who could help immediately.

Myers certainly looks good, but you've got to have a pretty low opinion of Lester to think it would be worth him AND JBJ to bring Myers back.

I don't think I'd give up Bradley for Myers straight up, personally, but that's probably my Sox-colored glasses. He absolutely destroyed the Carolina league, and then more than held his own in Portland after the promotion. He put up 87 walks in 128 games combining both levels, and had 24 XBH in 62 games with Portland. And he's a plus-plus defensive outfielder.

[OttoC]

...And he's [Bradley's] a plus-plus defensive outfielder.

I was not that impressed with his outfielding skills in the games I saw him playing for Portland this year. He seemed to have some troubles coming in on balls. (small sample size, though)

[Hendu for Kutch]

Myers certainly looks good, but you've got to have a pretty low opinion of Lester to think it would be worth him AND JBJ to bring Myers back.

I don't think I'd give up Bradley for Myers straight up, personally, but that's probably my Sox-colored glasses. He absolutely destroyed the Carolina league, and then more than held his own in Portland after the promotion. He put up 87 walks in 128 games combining both levels, and had 24 XBH in 62 games with Portland. And he's a plus-plus defensive outfielder.

Those glasses aren't just colored, they've got a Red Sox covering the lenses.

Myers did exactly what you're describing, but even more thoroughly and at a higher level despite being a bit younger. If you want to fairly compare their performance this season, just take a look at their AA lines, since that's the only level they both played at:

Bradley - .271/.373/.437
Myers - ..343/414/.731

It's certainly promising that Bradley held his own at AA this season, but Myers beat the tar out of AA and then was awesome at AAA on top of it.

[E5 Yaz]

If nothing else, this has started an interesting back and forth among beat writers

Pete Abraham ‏@PeteAbe

Holy cow, bored #RedSox writers are churning out Lester columns like Hyundais today.


Rob Bradford ‏@bradfo
.@AlexSpeier isn't close to bored and just followed up great look at Lester w story of Red Sox history with Wil Myers

Edited by E5 Yaz, 27 November 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

There's obviously no way you turn down a Myers-for-Bradley deal (and there's no way you ever get a chance to).

But that doesn't necessarily mean JBJ isn't a bit too valuable to serve as a makeweight in a Lester-for-Myers deal.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There's obviously no way you turn down a Myers-for-Bradley deal (and there's no way you ever get a chance to).

But that doesn't necessarily mean JBJ isn't a bit too valuable to serve as a makeweight in a Lester-for-Myers deal.

Yep. If another prospect is required to get the deal done I draw the line at Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes and DLR. Anyone else is up for discussion, though that doesn't mean I'd toss any other prospect in regardless of the the other variables. If they take on the bulk of Lester's salary, guys like Webster, Brentz and Owens are worth sending over. If we're picking up the cost of the contract, that's probably too rich of a prospect.

The devil is in the details, as they say.

[maufman]

Yep. If another prospect is required to get the deal done I draw the line at Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes and DLR. Anyone else is up for discussion, though that doesn't mean I'd toss any other prospect in regardless of the the other variables. If they take on the bulk of Lester's salary, guys like Webster, Brentz and Owens are worth sending over. If we're picking up the cost of the contract, that's probably too rich of a prospect.

The devil is in the details, as they say.

Lester is only under contract for 2013. Why would the need to pick up the tab for that make-or-break whether you're willing to include a B-level prospect to get a deal done for a guy who's going to be on most everyone's top 10 prospects list (not Royals' top 10, but top 10 in all of baseball)? I mean, I'm as big a Xander fan as anyone, but even I realize Myers would instantly become our undisputed #1 prospect if this trade went down.

I can understand walking away from a Lester-for-Myers deal because you wouldn't trade Lester -- I think that's seriously misguided, but at least I can understand. I absolutely can't fathom nixing such a deal over picking up Lester's 2013 salary and/or throwing in someone like Bryce Brentz.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

A 2014 OF of X/JBJ/Myers makes me happy in the pants. If X can stay at SS then insert Brentz. If not, Brentz becomes trade fodder.

Edited by Papelbon's Poutine, 27 November 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Lester is only under contract for 2013. Why would the need to pick up the tab for that make-or-break whether you're willing to include a B-level prospect to get a deal done for a guy who's going to be on most everyone's top 10 prospects list (not Royals' top 10, but top 10 in all of baseball)? I mean, I'm as big a Xander fan as anyone, but even I realize Myers would instantly become our undisputed #1 prospect if this trade went down.

I can understand walking away from a Lester-for-Myers deal because you wouldn't trade Lester -- I think that's seriously misguided, but at least I can understand. I absolutely can't fathom nixing such a deal over picking up Lester's 2013 salary and/or throwing in someone like Bryce Brentz.

This is a good point. I was including the 2014 option and there's no reason to think that would be part of the deal. KC could pick that up if they want after they see how the first year goes, if they hadn't extended him before then.

[soxfan121]

The question is not only "which prospect goes with Lester", it's also, "should the Sox eat Francouer and/or Chen's contract"? As explained above, KC is looking to do multiple things here and has other non-Lester options to accomplish those things. The Sox ability to move a 2nd tier prospect or prospects AND take back Francouer and/or Chen is why the Royals will discuss "Myers for Lester".

[Yo La Tengo]

If Myers does achieve "top-prospect-status," it is interesting to look at the other players who have filled that spot ... I'd say about a 1/3 fell well-short of the hype.

http://www.thebaseba....com/prospects/

[smastroyin]

Assigning a baseline value to a prospect is dangerous business. It's great to talk about what Myers will become and you do have to take chances on prospects, but to simply be so enamoured with a prospect to call this a no-brainer is what is seriously misguided.

Looking at BP's top 10 and picking out only the hitters

2007
Alex Gordon. Took him four years of being not very good to finally break out. His six year value of course comes out pretty well now, but not sure I would trade two years of Lester for his six years.
Delmon Young. Bust.
Brandon Wood. Bust.
Cameron Maybin. Terrible bat but his defense in Petco makes him valuable. Wouldn't trade Lester for it though
Chris Young. Another guy with a marginal bat but big defensive value.
Jay Bruce. One good year, pretty much just a guy otherwise.
Evan Longoria. model of an ideal young player, other than the injury stuff, but still, i would trade Lester for Longoria's first 4 years in the league no question.

2008:

Jay Bruce again
Evan Longoria again.
Travis Snider. Basically a bust.
Colby Rasmus. Love him as a player, but you'd be dumb to trade Lester for his career thus far.
Cameron Maybin again.

2009:
Matt Wieters. He's a catcher so you'd have to think about it, but he has yet to be as valuable as a good Lester season. Call this a maybe.
Pedro Alvarez. Bust so far. I like the kid and hope he breaks out. I would have traded the world for him in 2009. Oops.
Snider again
Rasmus again
Buster Posey. Great.

That's basically a 40% hit rate. (2 guys no doubt, 2 guys you can argue, 4 guys who are decent but not as good as Lester, 4 guys that are terrible so far)

I think you have to apply a bit of a discount rate on prospects even ones with as good a pedigree as Myers, is my point.

Now, I get that some people seem to think that 2012 Lester is as good as you are ever going to get. But the idea that 2012 Lester has little to no value is also somewhat ridiculous. In fact he was worth quite a bit more than his contract if you believe xFIP and will continue to be worth more than his contract even in the option year. Furthermore, it's not unheard of for 29 year olds to never get it back but it's not like he is in his mid-30's and almost a guarantee to be in steady decline.

I guess what I'm saying is that the heartbeat and seriously misguided statements make some assumptions that I'm not sure withstand a serious scrutiny of the data.

All of that said, there are a lot of things we don't know in play, including why Lester was so terrible in Fenway last year, whether he really is soured on the Red Sox, and whether Wil Myers would immediately prove his worth by letting his bat slip out of his hands at an opportune time to knock John Lackey into 2009. And perhaps most importantly, the idea of whether the Sox, in acting this plan, would move him back to C even if it means an extra year in the minors.

[Captaincoop]

Smas, your overall point is taken - that the downside risk on Myers is being underplayed. But IMHO, you're being overly negative on the evaluations of at least Bruce and Wieters above.

Jay Bruce. One good year, pretty much just a guy otherwise.

By what measure has Bruce had only one good season? He's 25 years old, cost-controlled, and coming off three straight healthy years with 25-35 home runs and 25-35 doubles. Sounds pretty good to me.

Matt Wieters. He's a catcher so you'd have to think about it, but he has yet to be as valuable as a good Lester season. Call this a maybe.

Wieters has not been as valuable as Lester at his best, but Lester hasn't been at his best since 2010. There is a serious question as to whether Lester will get back to that form. If there weren't, I don't think the Sox would be open to moving him right now. Wieters is a cheap, young, very productive catcher. I don't think many would say he's been a disappointment.

Edited by Captaincoop, 27 November 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[smastroyin]

Bruce has nice power numbers but his inability to hit .260 kind of undermines his value. Again, taking the WAR shortcut, he has produced only one year better than Lester's 2012 and that year wasn't as good as Lester's best. As for Wieters, I didn't say he was a disappointment, I said his value has not been enough to make me want to trade Lester. I don't know if you guys are misappropriating Lester's value or I am, but it is very clear that I value Lester a lot more. I also happen to think that a lot of the numbers are on my side, and I have presented a few of them.

I will also admit that after a jettison of so much salary I don't really find a lot of value in cost control. I will take Lester at 4 wins at a cost of $10 million ahead of someone with 2 wins even at the rookie minimum. The Red Sox need wins, not savings. It is also up to them to try and figure out some of the future values rather than doing what I am doing and merely looking at the past. I have to hope they can better assess Lester's future (at least as a Red Sox) than I can. And there are certainly good reasons to make this trade even if it costs you more than Lester (and it will not because of the strict value on the table but because of what the market will be willing to offer...there are other clubs that better match up in terms of need and available players), and in fact could easily argue that it is a trade they should do. I just think people are throwing all rational analysis out the window in favor of prospect fawning.

[E5 Yaz]

I'm not certain it's just prospect fawning at work in this case, though, although there's certainly much of that as well. I think it's as much the perception of where Lester is at this point in his career. Point out some downward trends, add in the residual of 2011-12, and he's not a shiny bauble anymore.

But this isn't a Beckett situation by any stretch; the contract simply isn't that onerous and Lester's apparent excitement over having Farrell back should have people more jazzed about the chances of his regaining form than is evidenced in this thread.

Speier works through why this argument in the thread I linked to above http://www.weei.com/...se-dazzling-rum but what I sense is that some are finding more reason for hope in someone that hasn't faltered yet than in the uncertainty of a rebound from a known commodity

[maufman]

The main argument for trading Lester is that he has two years of club control remaining. I have little interest in paying market value to retain him well into his 30s.

The money not spent on Lester and a veteran RF like Cody Ross could be put towards the cost of Zack Greinke, who is likely to be much better than Lester going forward.

[Gash Prex]

Seems to me Sox laid the groundwork for future conversations at the winter meetings. There is risk on both sides and that's exactly why each side is willing to do this deal.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The main argument for trading Lester is that he has two years of club control remaining. I have little interest in paying market value to retain him well into his 30s.

The money not spent on Lester and a veteran RF like Cody Ross could be put towards the cost of Zack Greinke, who is likely to be much better than Lester going forward.

Greinke's going to cost upwards of 20M a year, for 6 years at least. A lot of cash for a guy with a 3.77 career ERA and some potentially scary anxiety issues (given this market, it's a factor). I dunno, I am interested in Greinke, but trading Lester to make room for him isn't the way to go IMO. I think that it's easier to see the warts in the guys you already have and undervalue them while overrating others.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Greinke's going to cost upwards of 20M a year, for 6 years at least. A lot of cash for a guy with a 3.77 career ERA and some potentially scary anxiety issues (given this market, it's a factor). I dunno, I am interested in Greinke, but trading Lester to make room for him isn't the way to go IMO. I think that it's easier to see the warts in the guys you already have and undervalue them while overrating others.

I don't think maufman was suggesting trading Lester to make room for Greinke. They need another pitcher anyway, so Lester certainly isn't blocking that potential acquisition. It sounds more like he was saying they can afford to turn Lester into something else they need since the market has a potential replacement out there for nothing more than cash right now. Hell, the market has at least two options that could be as good or better than Lester next year.

So the team could conceivably turn Lester into Myers without having to take a step backwards in the rotation.

[joyofsox]

If nothing else, this has started an interesting back and forth among beat writers

Pete Abraham ‏@PeteAbe

Holy cow, bored #RedSox writers are churning out Lester columns like Hyundais today.


Rob Bradford ‏@bradfo
.@AlexSpeier isn't close to bored and just followed up great look at Lester w story of Red Sox history with Wil Myers

I guess PA is also bored - or was ordered to get off his fat ass and weigh in on this rumour since he's the Globe's beat writer.

http://www.boston.co...r_for_a_pr.html

Edited by joyofsox, 27 November 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[Jordu]

I guess PA is also bored - or was ordered to get off his fat ass and weigh in on this rumour since he's the Globe's beat writer.

http://www.boston.co...r_for_a_pr.html

He's not doing any reporting, which is his job. Make some phone calls, Pete.

What he's writing is the equivalent of a post in this thread, only with less information. Man, he's bad.

[maufman]

Greinke's going to cost upwards of 20M a year, for 6 years at least. A lot of cash for a guy with a 3.77 career ERA and some potentially scary anxiety issues (given this market, it's a factor). I dunno, I am interested in Greinke, but trading Lester to make room for him isn't the way to go IMO. I think that it's easier to see the warts in the guys you already have and undervalue them while overrating others.

Can you think of any pitcher in recent memory who has had such poor defenses behind him as Greinke has had in KC and Milwaukee? I can't -- and the difference between his career ERA (3.77) and FIP (3.45) bears that out.

I think Greinke's mental health issues and Nuke LaLoosh-esque interactions with the press are going to tamp down his market somewhat. At 6/120, I'm definitely interested (yes, this is an evolution from my views at the start of the offseason).

I would love to have Greinke and Lester as a 1-2 punch the next two seasons, but if you can turn Lester into Wil Myers, the 2013 Red Sox aren't nearly compelling enough to give me any pause in pulling the trigger on that deal.

[Rough Carrigan]

I'm really late in noticing this thread. But I would do this trade with reasonable other pieces in a fvcking heartbeat. Some of my interest is rational. I'm deeply skeptical of pitchers who don't seem to know what the fuck they're doing. That's where Lester has seemed to be for a year plus. Also, I hate the cutter. I fucking hate it. I hate the cutter like fundamentalist moslems hate pork products. I hate the cutter like Ayn Rand loathed the sacrifice. I hate the cutter like fundamentalist christians recoil from the number 666. Mind you, this is not out of dislike for Mariano Rivera. I'm pretty ambivalent about him. I respect him and don't particularly like him but except for a pitch at the head of Shea Hillenbrand the next time he faced him after Hillenbrand beat him with a game winning homer, I really can't think of jerk things he's done. No, I hate the cutter because the proliferation of the pitch has been insane. It's like everybody looked at Hoyt Wilhelm's great rookie year for the Giants in 1952 and then every single pitcher in the league was trying to throw 15 knuckleballs a game the next year. It's not for fvcking everybody. In fact, if you don't do it just right it seems like it's either an obvious ball or a cookie. Lester did it just right for a couple years. Now it's a ball. Or it's a cookie. Learn a splitter, for god's sake. Refine command of the fastball. Do something else. The whole fvcking league has figured him out.

Could he get back to where he was? Sure.

But let's ask another question. When will the Red Sox be real contenders to win it all again? 2014? 2015? Will Lester be part of those teams? Maybe 2014, if you exercise his option. But if they sense that he doesn't all that much want to be here, for whatever reason, then 2015's probably out of the question. That makes a guy who'd be still firmly under their control and who should be absolutely be hitting his stride at that point somewhat more attractive.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 27 November 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Assigning a baseline value to a prospect is dangerous business. It's great to talk about what Myers will become and you do have to take chances on prospects, but to simply be so enamoured with a prospect to call this a no-brainer is what is seriously misguided.

One thing I've learned is that it can be almost as risky in assuming a current major leaguer will maintain their own value. After 2012, can you say with any certainty what Lester's baseline value is? There certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether Lester's troubles are a blip, an injury that needs to be dealt with, or loss of talent.

Given what we know about both of them, is Myers at short money for 6 years really any more of a risk than Lester for moderate money for 2 years, especially given the rebuilding nature of the team? And I think it's obvious Myers offers more payoff if they both exceed expectations (again, given years/money involved along with when the team will benefit most from it).

[nvalvo]

(snip)
Lester did it just right for a couple years. Now it's a ball. Or it's a cookie. Learn a splitter, for god's sake. Refine command of the fastball. Do something else. The whole fvcking league has figured him out.
(snip)

This is a take I've seen a few times now. How does this interpretation square with his massive home/road split?

[Papelbon's Poutine]

This is a take I've seen a few times now. How does this interpretation square with his massive home/road split?

That LHP without overpowering stuff and refined fastball command do not fare well in Fenway? Just a spitball there but it seems to be correlated to his struggles that last year and a half.

As for why each team would do it, I think it boils down to opportunity. The royals need pitching and unfortunately have trouble (understandably) attracting quality FA and tight purse strings to overpay them to do so. They have a loaded roster with position players and can afford to dangle someone like Myers because they have long term above average players locked in at every position except 2B and RF. if Hosmer, Cain, Moustakas and Escoabar live up to their billing, Butler and Perez remain and they get small improvements in 2B and RF they will have an absolutely stacked lineup. Myers is a bit of a luxury. They need to trade for SP.

The Sox have money but little to spend it on. They have prospects but need them. They have seemingly and rightfully said that they will listen on anyone. I think from their prospective, they look at the fact that they may no longer view Lester a 5 WAR guy or at least doubt that to a big enough extent. They look and see Sanchez that should come in at 3-4, or roughly what they would hope to get Lester back at, who can be had for money. So by taking, perhaps a slight drop in WAR combined with a slight increase in salary, albeit at a longer commitment, they can swap Lester for Myers AND Sanchez, taking advantage of their payroll flexibility to come out about the same at that SP slot but far ahead in prospects. That has to be seen as a win even if Myers doesn't turn into Giancarlo Stanton 2.0. That's a reasonable risk to take IMHO.

This is to say nothing of the fact that if offers them trade flexibility with their own prospects by adding Myers to fill another SP slot.

[Rasputin]

But let's ask another question. When will the Red Sox be real contenders to win it all again? 2014? 2015? Will Lester be part of those teams? Maybe 2014, if you exercise his option. But if they sense that he doesn't all that much want to be here, for whatever reason, then 2015's probably out of the question. That makes a guy who'd be still firmly under their control and who should be absolutely be hitting his stride at that point somewhat more attractive.

This is a compelling argument.

There's almost nothing the Sox can do to be one of the favorites in 2013.

Unless they sell off their highest prospects, there's almost nothing they can do to be favorites in 2014.

For the Sox to come into 2015 as favorites, or perhaps I mean perceived favorites, the rookie crop of 2014 is going to have had to have some incredible rookie performances. Possible, of course, but not likely.

So, basically, 2016 is probably the earliest anyone will consider the Sox the favorites going into the season.

That puts Lester into perspective.

It also, imo, raises a question about Buchholz.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Can you think of any pitcher in recent memory who has had such poor defenses behind him as Greinke has had in KC and Milwaukee? I can't -- and the difference between his career ERA (3.77) and FIP (3.45) bears that out.

I think Greinke's mental health issues and Nuke LaLoosh-esque interactions with the press are going to tamp down his market somewhat. At 6/120, I'm definitely interested (yes, this is an evolution from my views at the start of the offseason).

I would love to have Greinke and Lester as a 1-2 punch the next two seasons, but if you can turn Lester into Wil Myers, the 2013 Red Sox aren't nearly compelling enough to give me any pause in pulling the trigger on that deal.

I think any expectation that Greinke's market will be suppressed by his anxiety issues goes right out the window if the Dodgers are involved, as they are rumored to be. From all indications, they are going to put themselves in the position of whatever Greinke can get elsewhere, they'll match or top it. I have already seen talk that he may break Sabathia's record for a pitcher contract.

Even without the Dodgers' presence, I think the idea that he'd go to Boston for anything less than full market value is wishcasting. Some smaller market will pay him reasonable value if he is willing to take less than top dollar, so I think in full awareness of his anxiety and how a pressure cooker market might affect him, he won't take a discount to come to the Red Sox. In fact, he might demand a premium from them that he might not ask of a Milwaukee or a Kansas City.

[In my lifetime]

This is a compelling argument.

There's almost nothing the Sox can do to be one of the favorites in 2013.

Unless they sell off their highest prospects, there's almost nothing they can do to be favorites in 2014.

For the Sox to come into 2015 as favorites, or perhaps I mean perceived favorites, the rookie crop of 2014 is going to have had to have some incredible rookie performances. Possible, of course, but not likely.

So, basically, 2016 is probably the earliest anyone will consider the Sox the favorites going into the season.

That puts Lester into perspective.

It also, imo, raises a question about Buchholz.

Really? What do you mean by favorites? If you mean favorites to win the WS, then the reasoning is basically you are always building for the future or that 1 in 10 year period when you might be considered favorites. I know 2 World Championships wins have made us as RS fans somewhat jaded, but I don't think we are at that point where only a World Championship is defined as a sucessful year.

Or do you mean favorites to make the playoffs? If that is the case, then there is no way, either ownership or the fan base is going to have (or should have) the patience to give up on 3 years. In addition, your equation misses significant additions via free agency. I for one would be very disappointed if the RS don't make the playoffs in 2014.

[smastroyin]

I guess I'm just going to give up. The point of a devil's advocate is to increase the level of discourse and I tried.

We have Will Myers numbers, you can find comps. You can do a rough projection of what you think his career might look like. You can find me a story about the fact that he can still catch or that he plays good CF. You can look at FA lists and talk about who may or may not be available. Whatever. Instead it's just a mound of touch feely garbage and talk about rebuilding. What in god's name has happened to this board?

My apologies. by all means, let's just do it because you "have to" do it, because "prospects of this level are hardly ever available" and because "we hate the cutter."

[OttoC]

...even if Myers doesn't turn into Giancarlo Stanton 2.0....

How about flipping Myers and some cash/whatever for Stanton?

[lexrageorge]

I don't think any big market team (Red Sox included) would base their decisions on the fact that they will be out of contention until 2016. That is ludicrous.

Keep in mind that going into 2006-07 offseason, the team had missed the playoffs the prior season. They had questionable starting pitching: Schilling was battling injuries, while Beckett was wildly inconsistent in all but one area in 2006: giving up gopher balls. Promising young LHP Lester was recovering from cancer treatment. The bullpen was another question mark, with Papelbon having been shut down due to shoulder issues. The team had holes at 2B (where they were going to rely on an unproven rookie), SS (which wasn't addressed), and RF (Trot Nixon was gone).

Before I get misinterpreted, I will categorically say that the current edition of the Sox is in worse shape than the team ending the 2006 season. However, noone looked at the team in November 2006 and said "that's a World Series favorite next season".

Getting into true contention in 2013 seems truly unlikely. However, it's way too early to make any judgments about 2014 and beyond. News flash: players will become available in trades or via free agency between now and then, players better than Mike Napoli even.

Therefore, there is no reason for the Sox to consider Lester anything less than a solid #2 lefty starter, who could very well project to return to form next season. His 2012 sucked because (a) his K rate dropped [bad sign] and (b) because his BABIP ballooned to 0.314 [fluky]. It's hardly due to the fact he throws a cutter in Fenway. Speier gave a far more comprehensive analysis of the reasons for either doing or not doing the trade from the Red Sox perspective than anything I could do, or what I've read here in this thread. It's by no means a "slam dunk" decision; the Andy Marte comparison is a relevant one when it comes to relying on prospects; relying on a comeback from Lester is risky as well, but I do believe established pitchers have a better chance of returning to form at age 29 than prospects without a major league at-bat. Sure, there are situations where making this trade could make a lot of sense for the Red Sox. Giving up their top 2 prospects plus Lester for Myers and a bunch of overpaid flotsam, OTOH, needs a lot more justification than the fact we don't like Lester's cutter.

[DanoooME]

I guess I'm just going to give up. The point of a devil's advocate is to increase the level of discourse and I tried.

We have Will Myers numbers, you can find comps. You can do a rough projection of what you think his career might look like. You can find me a story about the fact that he can still catch or that he plays good CF. You can look at FA lists and talk about who may or may not be available. Whatever. Instead it's just a mound of touch feely garbage and talk about rebuilding. What in god's name has happened to this board?

My apologies. by all means, let's just do it because you "have to" do it, because "prospects of this level are hardly ever available" and because "we hate the cutter."

I think there are a few factors at work here:

1. People are in love with the potential upside of Myers without too much consideration to the potential downside. It's easy to get excited about a 21 year old who tore up AA and did really well in AAA. A couple of people have pointed out downsides, but they've gotten steamrolled by the perpetual prospect love that permeates this board.
2. There's a lot of uncertainty about Lester's recent performance relative to his previous success. It's realistic to put more emphasis on his recent performance, which hasn't been too good, It seems that folks here are uncomfortable with what we can expect to see from Lester in 2013 and beyond. He'll only be 29 next year, is his performance really permanently in the toilet? Yeah, there are plenty of Rick Ankiel type examples, but then there are guys like Roy Halladay that have a big off year (bigger than pretty much anyone ever that actually came back and did well) in the early middle of their career.
3. Lester's home/road split last year is getting a lot of attention, but the only other time that kind of split ever showed up in his career is 2010 and that was more because his road split was otherworldly (553 OPS vs. 713 at home). In the other years, his split has been relatively even.
4. Everyone likes the "next big thing" whether it be baseball player, TV show, movie, car, whatever. I think an element of that is always going to be present on this board.
5. For every Pedroia the Sox have developed, there are certainly plenty of Hansens that haven't panned out either. I agree that this fact gets ignored way too often on this board.

Personally, I can see both sides of the equation and can also see that this can be a good deal for both sides with some risk going both ways. I think people here are projecting the combination of upside of Myers with the downside of Lester and saying that's better than the downside of Myers and upside of Lester (or somewhere in the middle).

Maybe the devil's advocates out there are afraid to get run over by the stampeding herd? Because they do frequently get trampled, rightly or wrongly. And a lot of times those devil's advocates end up making poorly worded or thought out arguments and then others don't want to get tainted by those poor arguments. I'm not saying that's a good reason, just a possible one.

[In my lifetime]

And before Lester is completely devalued, how many other pitchers and their contracts would you rather have instead of Lester and his contract of 2 years at 24.6?
Add to that the fact that the entire list will be available only at a fairly steep price (in terms of players, prospects, and/or money) and it becomes clear that Lester and his contract is a very significant asset even considering his off year.

Edited by In my lifetime, 28 November 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[Rough Carrigan]

I guess I'm just going to give up. The point of a devil's advocate is to increase the level of discourse and I tried.

We have Will Myers numbers, you can find comps. You can do a rough projection of what you think his career might look like. You can find me a story about the fact that he can still catch or that he plays good CF. You can look at FA lists and talk about who may or may not be available. Whatever. Instead it's just a mound of touch feely garbage and talk about rebuilding. What in god's name has happened to this board?

My apologies. by all means, let's just do it because you "have to" do it, because "prospects of this level are hardly ever available" and because "we hate the cutter."

Jeez. Get off your high horse. I started off saying that I would do the deal for reasons both rational and irrational. I'd hoped everyone would realize that I was acknowledging that my hatred of the cutter was in the latter category.

How about you address the issue of when will this team be a real contender again and will Jon Lester still be on the team at that time? Because planning for a cinderalla championship is dumb. And this team winning in 2013 would very likely be a cinderella championship. Maybe in 2014 they'd be a step closer to real contention. If Jon Lester doesn't want to be around after that, for whatever reason, then he's not likely to be part of a Sox championship contender, is he? If not, to some degree, you have to ask what the point is of having him. Yes, you're going to do your best even in the seasons where you're not a top contender. But you don't want to be the Washington Bullets or some sort of mediocre team stuck never building the team they should have because they're not willing to forego today in favor of tomorrow.

[Rudy Pemberton]

How about you address the issue of when will this team be a real contender again and will Jon Lester still be on the team at that time? Because planning for a cinderalla championship is dumb. And this team winning in 2013 would very likely be a cinderella championship. Maybe in 2014 they'd be a step closer to real contention.

They are closer in '14 than '13...because of what, exactly? The idea that the team cannot contend next year but will in '14, or '16, or whatever, is really not substantiated by anything. They have a long ways to go, but stranger things have happened (basically everything that has happened to this franchise in the past two years is stranger than them contending next year), and punting on the next few years because things will magically be better in '16 when the team has 4-5 guys that are even on the big league roster right now seems desperate. I certainly think you listen on Lester, but you'd have to be blown away. He's 29. They just hired Farrell; at least in part based on the idea that he could turn this guy around, and if he can turn him around, suddenly they have a shot.

[maufman]

And before Lester is completely devalued, how many other pitchers and their contracts would you rather have instead of Lester and his contract of 2 years at 24.6?
Add to that the fact that the entire list will be available only at a fairly steep price (in terms of players, prospects, and/or money) and it becomes clear that Lester and his contract is a very significant asset even considering his off year.

And you can count the number of prospects in the minor leagues who are better than Myers on your fingers.

I absolutely understand the unwillingness to trade Lester. Given his contract status and the Sox' likely 2013 outlook, however, if you wouldn't trade Lester for Myers now, you'll pretty much never trade a good, established big leaguer for an elite prospect. And I think that's the wrong approach, because it underestimates the risk that's always inherent in the status quo.

I think there are a few factors at work here:

1. People are in love with the potential upside of Myers without too much consideration to the potential downside. It's easy to get excited about a 21 year old who tore up AA and did really well in AAA. A couple of people have pointed out downsides, but they've gotten steamrolled by the perpetual prospect love that permeates this board.
2. There's a lot of uncertainty about Lester's recent performance relative to his previous success. It's realistic to put more emphasis on his recent performance, which hasn't been too good, It seems that folks here are uncomfortable with what we can expect to see from Lester in 2013 and beyond. He'll only be 29 next year, is his performance really permanently in the toilet? Yeah, there are plenty of Rick Ankiel type examples, but then there are guys like Roy Halladay that have a big off year (bigger than pretty much anyone ever that actually came back and did well) in the early middle of their career.
3. Lester's home/road split last year is getting a lot of attention, but the only other time that kind of split ever showed up in his career is 2010 and that was more because his road split was otherworldly (553 OPS vs. 713 at home). In the other years, his split has been relatively even.
4. Everyone likes the "next big thing" whether it be baseball player, TV show, movie, car, whatever. I think an element of that is always going to be present on this board.
5. For every Pedroia the Sox have developed, there are certainly plenty of Hansens that haven't panned out either. I agree that this fact gets ignored way too often on this board.

Personally, I can see both sides of the equation and can also see that this can be a good deal for both sides with some risk going both ways. I think people here are projecting the combination of upside of Myers with the downside of Lester and saying that's better than the downside of Myers and upside of Lester (or somewhere in the middle).

Maybe the devil's advocates out there are afraid to get run over by the stampeding herd? Because they do frequently get trampled, rightly or wrongly. And a lot of times those devil's advocates end up making poorly worded or thought out arguments and then others don't want to get tainted by those poor arguments. I'm not saying that's a good reason, just a possible one.

I think you're imagining the sins of the pro-Myers crowd.

People have differing opinions of the likelihood of a bounce-back season from Lester, but I don't think there's anyone who doesn't acknowledge that it's a distinct possibility. Indeed, even though I would do the Myers trade in a heartbeat, I think Lester's 2013-14 numbers are likely to resemble his 2011-12 peripherals, not his 2012 actuals.

As for the risk of Myers, not a single person has suggested that there was no risk that Myers would fizzle, and a few pro-Myers folks (including me) have acknowledged our concern that Dayton Moore (not a great overall GM, but generally regarded as a good evaluator of minor-league talent) would be willing to trade a prospect like Myers for someone with two years of club control.

On the contrary, however, I don't think any of the anti-trade folks have wrestled adequately with Lester's declining K rate. Unless you have some reason to think Lester will revert to striking out more than a batter an inning, as he did in 2009-10, there's little reason to think his long-run performance will revert to that level. And if he's not that guy, I don't understand why a team that's unlikely to contend next season wouldn't trade two years of control of a #2 starter for six years of control of a top-10 overall prospect in baseball. As I said above, if you won't trade for an elite prospect in those circumstances, you pretty much never will.

If P91 were around, I'm sure he'd make the argument that a big-market club like the Sox should never trade proven talent for a prospect, but I don't see anyone here making that argument. And if you're not willing to make that argument, I don't see the argument for not doing a Lester-for-Myers trade (assuming no other major parts, except perhaps cash going to KC for part/all of Lester's 2013 salary).

[Drek717]

How about flipping Myers and some cash/whatever for Stanton?

Stanton is the one guy I don't see the Marlins even talking about trading. He's 23. They could go through several more rebuild and fire sale cycles before he's out of his prime. Why trade him for prospects who have a ton more risk and are only a year or two younger?

[Savin Hillbilly]

That LHP without overpowering stuff and refined fastball command do not fare well in Fenway? Just a spitball there but it seems to be correlated to his struggles that last year and a half.

But that's easily turned around. Do LHP without those good things really rack up a 3.20 ERA, 2.96 K/BB and .657 OPS allowed over 98 innings on the road? If a pitcher has a strong home/road split in favor of his home park, you could argue that he's hiding behind the home park in some way. But how do you hide behind a dozen different parks scattered around MLB?

Put it another way: let's say Lester isn't good enough to excel in Fenway anymore. But if he's still good enough to excel everywhere else, isn't that what determines his trade value? Once he's pitching for the Royals, he'll see Fenway once a year at most. Is that really going to be a deal-breaker?

[Rasputin]

Really? What do you mean by favorites? If you mean favorites to win the WS, then the reasoning is basically you are always building for the future or that 1 in 10 year period when you might be considered favorites. I know 2 World Championships wins have made us as RS fans somewhat jaded, but I don't think we are at that point where only a World Championship is defined as a sucessful year.

What I mean as favorites is coming into the season viewed as one of the top few teams in the game.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your point and I am sure I don't understand it's relevance to the question at hand.

If you think you can only be one of the best teams one year out of ten, you're wrong. That's why you build with youth, so you can be one of the best teams for a long time.

And I certainly don't think winning the World Series is the only way to have a successful season.

Yeah, I didn't include free agents, not because I think it's impossible to sign any, or even any big ones, but because it looks to me like the team is comitted to giving the current crop of almost-but-not-quite here prospects a chance. We don't know which ones will work out and which won't, and neither does the team.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Stanton is the one guy I don't see the Marlins even talking about trading. He's 23. They could go through several more rebuild and fire sale cycles before he's out of his prime. Why trade him for prospects who have a ton more risk and are only a year or two younger?

For one of the same reasons people are quoting as to why trade Lester - when is the next time the Marlins will be ready to contend and will he be a part of that team? There is very, very little chance he resigns when he hits FA, especially considering he seems pretty upset with team right now. I agree that I don't see them talking about him - and its been rumored Selig would veto even if they did - but right now I would argue he has more trade value than maybe 4 or 5 other guys in the game - Trout, Strasburg, Posey, maybe Harper). They have probably a two year window to maximize his return and while it would draw screams of bloody murder if they did it, it might likely be a good play for them since they are fully in rebuild and everyone hates them already.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

And before Lester is completely devalued, how many other pitchers and their contracts would you rather have instead of Lester and his contract of 2 years at 24.6?
Add to that the fact that the entire list will be available only at a fairly steep price (in terms of players, prospects, and/or money) and it becomes clear that Lester and his contract is a very significant asset even considering his off year.

Which is why he's in trade talks for probably the #1 or #2 prospect in baseball. No one is arguing he isn't valuable, they're arguing about how much that value means to the Sox given their situation, the immediate future and the available alternatives, in addition to the comparison of where each player is trending.

[SoxScout]

“We don’t have a hard number on anything,” Glass told The Star. “I would tell you that for us to break even, our payroll has to be in the $70 million range. But as we’ve discussed before, we will react based on what our opportunities are.”
----

Glass agrees “one more impact pitcher would significantly improve our opportunity to compete” in 2013 but remains reluctant to compromise the club’s long-term approach. “So now you get to the point where it depends on what’s available,” he said. “You say, ‘Go spend it.’ Well, what do you spend it on? Unless you get something that is going to help you beyond this year … I don’t want us to have a one-year approach.”
---

“What Dayton has to weigh,” Glass said, “is what the trade-off is in trying to be more competitive this year? I love our core of young players. I think they’re going to get better. I think we had the best bullpen in the American League this past year. “Starting pitching is where we’re short. But do you disturb or damage other areas to get that starting pitching? Dayton has made a good start with Santana and Guthrie, and there are other things being discussed.”

http://www.kansascit...-more-than.html

[Rovin Romine]

Yeah, I didn't include free agents, not because I think it's impossible to sign any, or even any big ones, but because it looks to me like the team is comitted to giving the current crop of almost-but-not-quite here prospects a chance. We don't know which ones will work out and which won't, and neither does the team.

The point is that some of them have to work out - assuming the team is serious about staying under the luxury tax, and given the new rules regarding free agency, the Sox need to pick up exceptional value from pre-arb young players, fair value for arb-elibable players, or locking up those young players to good deals (as the Sox did with Pedroia/Lester.)

Granted the Sox have more money to burn (right now) than most, but they can't really buy their way to a championship through free agency. It would cripple them in the draft, and I don't think you can really buy enough WAR solely in the free agent market. It's also unlikely that the Sox can plan on picking up a lot of of young good cost controlled players via firesales, trades, etc. because it would cost prospects at something like a 3/1 ratio.


***

So, given all that, I would also do this trade in a second - it gives you one more high upside prospect for that 2014+ window, and arguably one who might help in 2013. It all depends on what the "real" window of Sox contention is: 2013,14,15?

The one thing I'd also consider is going to Lester and offering him an extension right now. Say, adding 2 years at 10mil each. He'd decline most likely, but if there was common ground it would shift the discussion somewhat. Trading 3/4 years of Lester is another story altogether, as he has a good chance to be a 2/3 pitcher going forward, even if he does not quite regain his form. If there's no extension it breaks down like this:

2013
Either Lester will have a disappointing season or be good in 2013. Either way, it could be meaningless, depending on the rest of the team (the offseason will tell, and management probably knows now whether they "really" intend to go for it now, or are focusing on 2014+). If Lester's good in 2013, I'm sure the sox will exercise the option and/or offer an extension, if he's mediocre, the sox may or may not pick up the option. So we get:
Good or Meh Lester for a semi-contending (?) team.
Or we get Good Lester traded mid-season for prospects (not Myers quality).
Or we get 13mil (less freight) and Myers.

2014
We either have good Lester at ten mil for a possible contender.
Or another "roll the dice Lester" at ten mil for a possible contender.
Or 10mil toward a FA.
Or 10mil FA and Myers.

2015
Come 2015, he's a FA, so he's likely to be overpriced, as some team will pay for an immediate SP need and hope the back end of the contract won't hurt that much.
2015 would seem to be a solid contention year, if our younger valuable players mature. (If not, all this is meaningless anyway.)
So we get Overpriced Lester (no prospect loss) for a solid contender.
Or Myers.

Seems like Myers is the way to go.