DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
I guess, but Lester in pinstripes is going to be an awful thing to see.
Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
I guess, but Lester in pinstripes is going to be an awful thing to see.
The 6/105 was probably Lester's walk-away # in March. A very reasonable # trading off $ for security. Its a shame the Sox were 33% off Lester's lowest #. I'm not sure why people have a hard time accepting that even smart people make mistakes.soxhop411 said:
bankshot1 said:
You keep insisting that the Sox made a mistake, and they may well have. But is it really unreasonable, given what we know about the team since the Punto trade, they they knew exactly what they were doing?
I think everyone accepts it was a mistake ex post. I probably would have done 6/105 ex ante, but I would hardly consider it a "mistake" not to do so. And if Lester was willing to sign for those dollars, Lester's agent erred in not countering an offer that provided the same AAV over a shorter term.bankshot1 said:
It's far more likely that Lester was going to test the market unless the FO, flush with World Series success, offered him a contract that most teams would consider irrational based on what was known at the time. (The Sox offered such a contract to Ortiz, so it wasn't absurd for Lester to think they might do the same for him.)
Jon Lester bet on himself, and he's poised to win big. I'm not sure why we need to blame someone for that; this thread is the mirror image of fans who loathe the star player who isn't willing to turn down a contract the size of a small country's GDP in the name of "loyalty."
Good call. To be honest this is one of the most fascinating aspects of this whole topic for me. Vincent Bugliosi wrote about it at length in his book "Outrage" about the OJ Simpson trial. His theory was that if people actually knew how much incompetence really existed in the world it would be too much for them to bear.bankshot1 said:
They tried to leverage Lester's desire in stay in Boston with what many consider an offer short on years and money, They miscalculated.They made a mistake, that will either cost them an elite pitcher or millions of $ that they did not have to spend.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
I agree there are a lot of details that we do not know, but from what we do know negotiations ended shortly after Lester said (paraphrase) that if they were close to a deal negotiations would continue into the season, Sometime in ST or early April the 4/70 offer was made, shortly after that we learned negotiations ended. I chose to connect the dots.maufman said:
Or they decided that they weren't going to give a pitcher over 30 a contract longer than 4 years. A conscious decision. And Lester decided he wasn't going to sign for less than 6 years. Also a conscious decision. And maybe that's pretty much where the talks ended. I really think this is way more about the years than the dollars.bankshot1 said:
EDIT--at least, that's how I connected the dots
At that's a possibility too, except we don't have the info that the Sox wouldn't go to 5 years on a "team friendly" (ie. cheap-Pedroia type deal ) or that "6" was Lester's magic #.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
edit I also think having a "never" rule about 30 YO and L-T deals may also be a mistake. But that's a different issue
Exactly--we don't have a lot of info. And without that info, all we can do is guess, and collect the dots as we choose to, and then draw our conclusions from there. There is nothing clear cut about this, regardless of whether we are disappointed with the current status or not.bankshot1 said:
And maybe when Lester referenced Pedey's contract, and talked about retiring as a Red Sox, he meant that he wanted an 8 year deal too.MakMan44 said:
MakMan44 said:
And why didn't they? It seems as if most posters here considered the reported 4yr/$70mm offer way below market. Some folks here feel as if the Sox FO was trying to leverage Lester's desire to stay in Boston but that makes little sense. When parties bargain in good faith, they don't start by showing a completely unreasonable bid/offer. 4yrs/$70mm was untenable from the jump.
So either the Sox FO screwed up their view of the market and I refuse to believe they did so, or they were sending a clear signal to Lester that if he wanted a six year deal, he had to look elsewhere.
They can offer him a five year deal now. Than can offer him six years too Why haven't they - he looks worth it now? They haven't because they were never prepared to offer a contract that long.
With tonight's blowout bolstering the hot streak, we will see a real test about whether management can stick to their plan. The 3 best expiring contrracts appear to be Lester, Uehara and Miller. If the Sox keep closing in to making the playoffs, who if any of these 3 will they sell? Lester isn't going anywhere. If they are contending, the difference between the draft pick they get if they lose him and the hypothetical trade for more major league ready assets is the price they pay. Relievers, Koji included, are more fungible. Nobody in baseball history not named Mariano Rivera had such elite seasons as a closer at Uehara's age. He is the ultimate sell high candidate because his days are numbered based solely on age. If the Sox miss the playoffs or have an early exit, it will be because of the team's overall performance - not the loss of their closer. They might be better off auditioning Tazawa and converted younger arms (DLR, Barnes, Renaudo, Webster?) to replace their pushing age 40 closing ace. The Dodgers, if they will part with Pederson (other assets will be needed to make that happen), have exactly what they need: Victorino's successor. If the Sox can include decent prospects in a package with Koji for that type of "impact" young outfielder who will remain under team control that they sorely need, you've got to pull that trigger.
Well that would depend on what other "decent prospects" we are sending with Koji, and which "impact young OFer" is coming back. Koji and Hassan for Pederson? Without knowing much about Pederson, and assuming he would be a plus defender in RF, sure, that makes some sense, even if Pederson's gaudy Rancho C. and Albuquerque numbers leave me less than convinced.
Koji plus Brian Johnson for Pederson? I am willing to defer to mgt's judgement on Brian Johnson, but from this considerable distance I am inclined no.
And I am struggling with your certainty that if the Sox miss the playoffs, it won't be because we traded Koji, but rather due to "verall performance."
Re the thread topic, the failure to sign Lester at the ASB, and the leaks re dealing Miller today, suggest to me that HWL are at least still seriously considering the massive payroll reduction option for 2015. In this scenario, Koji becomes this year's Napoli, the one relatively cheap guy they bring back to keep them looking too chintzy.
Koji plus Brian Johnson for Pederson? I am willing to defer to mgt's judgement on Brian Johnson, but from this considerable distance I am inclined no.
And I am struggling with your certainty that if the Sox miss the playoffs, it won't be because we traded Koji, but rather due to "verall performance."
Re the thread topic, the failure to sign Lester at the ASB, and the leaks re dealing Miller today, suggest to me that HWL are at least still seriously considering the massive payroll reduction option for 2015. In this scenario, Koji becomes this year's Napoli, the one relatively cheap guy they bring back to keep them looking too chintzy.
The Heyman article
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24621156/lester-thrown-off-by-in-season-contract-talks-as-free-agency-looms
So if Heyman's sources are to be believed the Sox were willing to go to 5/100 (killing one theory) but never officially offered it, as one interpretation of the Heyman narrative could be Lester's camp told him that Lester was told that the Sox did not negotiate during the season and he was thrown off by the change in the Sox stance.
Now I imagine that the Sox can offer him a new deal at any time, and perhaps they have, and have been rebuffed, or there are negotiations currently under way, or perhaps the Sox are still determining what to do and reassessing the situation. But just because there is no public offer out there does not mean one is not being contemplated.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24621156/lester-thrown-off-by-in-season-contract-talks-as-free-agency-looms
So if Heyman's sources are to be believed the Sox were willing to go to 5/100 (killing one theory) but never officially offered it, as one interpretation of the Heyman narrative could be Lester's camp told him that Lester was told that the Sox did not negotiate during the season and he was thrown off by the change in the Sox stance.
Now I imagine that the Sox can offer him a new deal at any time, and perhaps they have, and have been rebuffed, or there are negotiations currently under way, or perhaps the Sox are still determining what to do and reassessing the situation. But just because there is no public offer out there does not mean one is not being contemplated.
You provide a strange interpretation of the leak. "Lester said he never received a new number" is the key statement from the Lester camp. From the Sox camp by way of response: we were ready to offer 5/100 "or thereabouts" (gag), but never did.
I do not see how that can be interpreted as "perhaps the Sox have" made another offer.
In other words, it appears, as if the Sox publicly communicated an intent to re-open talks, but never made a new offer. I am sure they are "contemplating" an offer, as you say, but, it is a little late for extended contemplation, especially when you asked to re-open talks for one-time 4-day window, in mid-season, contrary to your apparent expressed intent 3 months ago.
The approx. 5/100, non-offer leak, looks like a not so subtle way to communicate to Lester, that they are not that serious at paying even 80% of what the going rate is likely to be. Ie, "Jon go get your money from someone else, we have PR work to do."
I also read between the lines, speculatively, that the Sox are telling Lester, we made our offer, I know you don't like it, but it is your turn, time for a counter. Lester is saying" "FU, show me you are serious with a real offer, but I am not putting a hometown discount of 6./150 or more on the table so you can leak it and make me look a greedy POS.
I do not see how that can be interpreted as "perhaps the Sox have" made another offer.
In other words, it appears, as if the Sox publicly communicated an intent to re-open talks, but never made a new offer. I am sure they are "contemplating" an offer, as you say, but, it is a little late for extended contemplation, especially when you asked to re-open talks for one-time 4-day window, in mid-season, contrary to your apparent expressed intent 3 months ago.
The approx. 5/100, non-offer leak, looks like a not so subtle way to communicate to Lester, that they are not that serious at paying even 80% of what the going rate is likely to be. Ie, "Jon go get your money from someone else, we have PR work to do."
I also read between the lines, speculatively, that the Sox are telling Lester, we made our offer, I know you don't like it, but it is your turn, time for a counter. Lester is saying" "FU, show me you are serious with a real offer, but I am not putting a hometown discount of 6./150 or more on the table so you can leak it and make me look a greedy POS.
I think that both interpretations are reasonable, given what has been disclosed (as in the Heyman story or the CHB/LL interview). I think the Lester camp did not take the 4/70 seriously, as it was far off their lowest contemplated #. so never countered it. My one question to the timeline is when was the 5/100 offer/non-offer was discussed? If it was in April/May it could be seen as real, if it was more recently, its likely a bogus face-saving offer.KillerBs said:
I'm tired of dwelling on the past. If the rumor about Bailey's 6/105 + an option were true pre-season, then given what they have in Lester, I'd go 6/140 based on nothing more than this (business, not baseball):
1. Took a gamble on a low offer, with the understanding that a hometown discount might be available - or that the free agent to be would have a down year: 4/70
2. Theoretical counter offer was 6/105
3. Lost the gamble on the down year. Lost the gamble on hometown discount. That's life...these things sometime happen
4. The theoretical difference (gross salary only, not years) between the 2 "opening" offers was 35M. I lost the bet.
5. Offer the years (6) + 1/2 the original split (17.5M) as the penalty for being wrong = 105 + 17.5 = 122.5 for 6 (+ option) but be willing to settle at the whole split = 105 + 35 = 140M / 6 (+option)
That's the opposite of the home town discount for the party that gambled and lost, but wins by keeping a stud and losing nothing but money and face.
AAV = 23M in 2014 dollars.
1. Took a gamble on a low offer, with the understanding that a hometown discount might be available - or that the free agent to be would have a down year: 4/70
2. Theoretical counter offer was 6/105
3. Lost the gamble on the down year. Lost the gamble on hometown discount. That's life...these things sometime happen
4. The theoretical difference (gross salary only, not years) between the 2 "opening" offers was 35M. I lost the bet.
5. Offer the years (6) + 1/2 the original split (17.5M) as the penalty for being wrong = 105 + 17.5 = 122.5 for 6 (+ option) but be willing to settle at the whole split = 105 + 35 = 140M / 6 (+option)
That's the opposite of the home town discount for the party that gambled and lost, but wins by keeping a stud and losing nothing but money and face.
AAV = 23M in 2014 dollars.
Bankshot, you refer again to 5/100 as being maybe sort of an "offer." Lester says there has been no offer after 4/70. The Sox do not deny that. I take it from this, that there is no 5/100 offer. There is only a statement to Heyman that the Sox were 'prepared to offer' something like 5/100, which it needs to be acknowledged would have been, in any event, an extremely low ball opening offer in this context.
As to the timing, it seems clear to me that the Sox were "prepared to", but did not, make that 5/100 offer over the ASB, not earlier during the season, when it seems there were no serious discussions, certainly no offers.
From here -- admittedly reading tea leaves -- it looks like they are not serious at all about signing Lester, in much the same way that they were never serious about re-signing Ellsbury.
As to the timing, it seems clear to me that the Sox were "prepared to", but did not, make that 5/100 offer over the ASB, not earlier during the season, when it seems there were no serious discussions, certainly no offers.
From here -- admittedly reading tea leaves -- it looks like they are not serious at all about signing Lester, in much the same way that they were never serious about re-signing Ellsbury.
KillerBs said:
Disagree. I really think there are enough hints,leaks, or tea leaves to theoretically support either the he's gone or there's no way they let him go theory. However, If they are as far apart as they were on Ellsbury it makes very little sense to even pretend they want to keep him around.
It was a guarantee to everyone who remotely follows the Red Sox that they were never going to give Ells a 9 figure contract especially after getting burned with CC. Additionally, they let Ells walk after winning another ring. Arguing they have the depth or high upside talent to replace Lester for the 2015 season is a very shaky argument if not complete bull without trading assets for a Hamels or overpaying for something on the FA market which makes you wonder why not just "overpay" and keep Lester?
The FO might like to say they deal only in numbers and performance but Pedroia's deal( a discount but a ton of years and no trade protection) and Ortiz's extension show they can be human from time to time.
They gambled thinking Lester's value couldn't get any higher then what it was after the WS. They were wrong but I would bet they still don't want to set the market for the Sheilds Sherzer Lester Price Samardzijia group of pitchers about to hit the other side of 30.
It's possibly a standoff between the sides as to who moves next. Why would any experienced negotiator allow something like that to frame the discussion? Where the initial offer is ludicrous, the normal rejoinder is: "Call me when you're ready to put something serious on the table."
That's one approach. The other is to make a counteroffer that's aggressive in the other direction. If Lester's agent was serious about getting a deal done, I think the second approach was the correct one. I understand, however, the concern about leaks -- it's not hard to imagine the FO sharing selected info with their friends in the Boston media, triggering a spate of articles about Jon Lester's greed spoiling the celebrations of the 2013 championship season, yadda yadda yadda.Otis Foster said:
Sadly, I think that's a reasonable interpretation if the 5/100 non-offer was contemplated early July. I still hold out hope the Sox put forth a real market offer to Lester (6/132-150) before season's end, as IMO, without projecting super-stardom for a AA pitcher, it remains the best option for the pitching staff for the next 3-4+ year.KillerBs said:
Leaking these stories isn't helping Boston's chances of retaining Lester. If that Homer Bailey contract story is true then Lester is probably gone. I'm starting to get the same feeling about him that I did about Ellsbury. He's going to be pitching opening day for the Yankees on the exact same contract Ellsbury signed for.
maufman said:
This is where I am. In my experience, if your goal is to get a deal, the respose to 4/70 is 8/225. If you're just as wiling to test the market/gamble on the season as you are anxious to make a deal, you walk away.
The Sox mistake was in not considering "they'll walk away" as a realistic outcome in response to 4/70. It surprsies me too.
I get the long term considerations and concerns about a six year deal for Lester. But good grief, I cannot stand the thought of the Yankees plucking the Red Sox' best starting pitcher, a dominant lefty still in his prime, filling exactly the kind of need that they have. While the Red Sox, who have the money to prevent that from happening, stand by allowing it.
Just thinking about it makes me angry.
Just thinking about it makes me angry.
Otis Foster said:
Maybe this is true in some negotiations, but that's not what actually happened. Lester said himself that after the Sox put their initial offer on the table, talks continued. "“We had plenty of talks after that as far as money, moving years, moving money, but never got to another offer."
The only conclusion I can make is that if they were talking about years and money after the initial offer, Lester's camp was talking about Scherzer money. And quite frankly, if Lester really was willing to take 6/$105 - which I highly doubt he would have - it's a failure on BOTH sides to get this done because going from 4/$70 to 5/$100 when Lester is willing to take 6/$105 should be eminently doable.
The other thing that I think people aren't taking into consideration is that perhaps the Red Sox didn't offer 5/$100 because the last thing they wanted to be was an insurance policy. If they knew Lester would say yes, that's one thing. But they were likely so far apart, the Red Sox didn't think Lester would jump on it and they didn't want to leave it out there while negotiations were continuing. If the 5/$100M offer was on the table; Lester could sit on it and if he injured himself or pitched terribly, perhaps he would then take that offer - the last offer on the table - even though it was more market than a discount.
I wonder how long this thread would be if Lester was pitching like Jake Peavy.
It's also possible, unless I missed this, that they wouldn't budge off of something around 4/70 in March and now they're willing to come up to 5/100 after how he's performed. And Lester is telling them to go fuck themselves because that was the absolute bottom he was willing to discuss before he went out and put together a Cy Young season.
If you make an offer it has a shelf life. It's not like if they offered 5/100 and Lester shit the bed they would be beholden to continue to offer it.
This is obvious but worth mentioning.
If they can't sign Lester ...trading him for a prospect or two to a team that will pay him and resigns him long term (Seattle or LA?) does have the added benefit of keeping him away from the Yankees.
That is certainly beneficial.
If they can't sign Lester ...trading him for a prospect or two to a team that will pay him and resigns him long term (Seattle or LA?) does have the added benefit of keeping him away from the Yankees.
That is certainly beneficial.
so this is interesting
Peter Gammons @pgammo · 3h
GM:"Don't expect hometown discount deals with a Lester, or almost anyone. The union is more involved in contracts than anytime in years..
Peter Gammons @pgammo · 3h
@pgammo and they are driving them for the greater good of all players"
https://twitter.com/pgammo/with_replies
Peter Gammons @pgammo · 3h
GM:"Don't expect hometown discount deals with a Lester, or almost anyone. The union is more involved in contracts than anytime in years..
Peter Gammons @pgammo · 3h
@pgammo and they are driving them for the greater good of all players"
https://twitter.com/pgammo/with_replies
soxhop411 said:
How is demanding inflationary contracts for elite players conceived to be "for the greater good of all players"? Seems to me that's just going to make things harder for non-elite veterans. If you can't have a $20M player without paying $30M for him, then you're going to make that up by avoiding $10M players, and making do with cost-controlled or super-cheap veterans in their place. It's the disappearing middle class, baseball edition.
I think that's the second reference to the MLBPA being "involved" in contract negotiations I've read here recently. This is probably a dumb question, but what is the PA's leverage here? Do they have some sort of sign-off on individual deals? (I understand there are provisions of the CBA that generally govern deals, as has been touched on in the thread about Lackey.)
I recall the MLBPA being incensed with a deal Tony Gwynn signed with the Padres late in his career.
They killed the Arod/Sox deal over a $12MM concession.
Gammons was just on WFAN and said he doesn't think the Sox will sign Lester, as Henry will not do a $140MM deal.
Gammons was just on WFAN and said he doesn't think the Sox will sign Lester, as Henry will not do a $140MM deal.
bankshot1 said:
But the issue there involved the Sox trying to restructure an existing contract, and the PA invoked provisions in the bargaining agreement to prevent it. Does the PA have any authority to enforce a minimum value for a newly-negotiated FA contract?
tomdeplonty said:
They don't have authority but they can exert pressure. I've heard this multiple times. How exactly they do this, I don't know. I think they were pretty unhappy with Pedroia's deal.
I used the Arod deal as an example of the MLBPA power/say in contract matters.
As to your question, if a FA player never entertains other offers, but wishes to resign with his old team, at presumably a lower contract figure than would be available in a full auction environment, can the PA protest the signing?
The Player's Association needs to weigh security/longevity alongside AAV for their members.
I agree with them that a player shouldn't leave money on the table, unless it's offset by other things.
I agree with them that a player shouldn't leave money on the table, unless it's offset by other things.
I'm as pro-union as anyone and recognize their stake in this, although I don't really think it's in their portfolio to determine what factors should be involved in an individual's player's decision, or how to weigh those factors. The CBA sets parameters for players/agents to negotiate with their clubs, nothing more.geoduck no quahog said:
- Status