Extending Lester

[dcmissle]

He's not gone until the Boston Globe starts putting out hit pieces on him to win the PR battle.  If they start talking about chicken & beer, he's gone.

However this is resolved, my one hope is that everyone behaves in a classy way.

If anything like the above happens, be very afraid because that would reflect monumental stupidity exceeding anything we have seen since Henry has owned the team. There is no way Lester is close to a plausible villain.

 

[Plympton91]

How are the Yankees this year?

Way ahead of the Red Sox.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Way ahead of the Red Sox.

 

 

[TheoShmeo]

However this is resolved, my one hope is that everyone behaves in a classy way.

If anything like the above happens, be very afraid because that would reflect monumental stupidity exceeding anything we have seen since Henry has owned the team. There is no way Lester is close to a plausible villain.

Meh, the negative PR spin angle is way overblown.
 
How many bad articles have you read on Salty or Ellsbury?  Or Youks?  No whispers on any of them other things that were said when they were here. 
 
The two most recent cases were Tito and AJP (relatively light).  Tito I would submit was a unique, multi-layered case, and AJP was indeed a major douche bag, as they should have known in advance.
 
If Lester goes to the MFYs as a free agent, my prediction is that he will get booed by some and cheered by some, just like Ells, and not have any Hohler-like pieces to deal with.

 

[EvilEmpire]

If Lester is willing to take market rate right now, the Sox may still get a discount compared to what he is likely to be offered in the offseason.  So there's that.  But the talk from his camp about still being open to make a deal may be more about convincing the Sox to not trade him in the hopes that something can still be worked out. 

 

[mauf]

  How far apart can they possibly be that these guys would even notice the difference given how much money they're pulling in? 

The effect of exceeding the CBT threshold is enough that they'd notice the difference. Like every other club besides the MFY and Dodgers, the Sox have decided not to go there.

Therefore, it isn't a question of spending money on Lester or pocketing it; it's a question of spending money on Lester or spending it on someone else. From what I've read in the 2015 payroll thread, it seems likely that committing $25mm a year to Lester and making material additions to bolster the offense are mutually exclusive goals.

 

[gammoseditor]

To be honest, in a world were Homer Bailey gets $21 MM/year, it was completely unreasonable to think Lester would sign for less than $20.
 
Maybe Bailey's contract will be the outlier it deserves to be, but I have a feeling that the continued redistribution of revenue will continue to edge up first and second tier pitcher and premier position player salaries.  Then you have to wonder whether the Red Sox are smart to stay out of that until the money is stabilized, or if they are just lagging in adjusting to new market conditions.  

 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Bailey's contract averages just over 18 a year if you factor out this year which he was only arbitration eligible. He was also coming off a year where he made 32 starts, 209 IP, a 3.49 ERA, and a 3.31 FIP. The year before wasn't quite as good but it wasn't bad either. He has been a major disappointment this year, but I think you’re underselling him here.  If anything Bailey’s terrible year this year is another data point in what can go wrong with giving good pitchers big contracts. [/SIZE]

 

[tims4wins]

 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Bailey's contract averages just over 18 a year if you factor out this year which he was only arbitration eligible. He was also coming off a year where he made 32 starts, 209 IP, a 3.49 ERA, and a 3.31 FIP. The year before wasn't quite as good but it wasn't bad either. He has been a major disappointment this year, but I think you’re underselling him here.  If anything Bailey’s terrible year this year is another data point in what can go wrong with giving good pitchers big contracts. [/SIZE]

 
Exactly - is Bailey's 2014 much different than Lester's 2012?

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Lester has said he doesn't like change, and wants to stay in Boston if they give him the money he wants. So they make the lowball offer in spring, then never come back with a higher offer, and then trade him at the deadline-- why in the world would he come back here if he can about the same money elsewhere? If that's how it goes down, then the team clearly didn't want him here and their actions spoke quite clearly. They didn't want him and disrupted him in the middle of the season to get some minor leaguer. That doesn't sound like a path to an agreement. And why would the Red Sox suddenly come up with a huge offer for him in the offseason and why would Lester take it? Sure if the offer is more than anyone else would offer he would, but why would the Red Sox suddenly make that offer then, after all their actions before? It's just not going to happen like that. 
 
And it's not just PR concerns, it's also the possible impact on TV and radio ratings after the club clearly quits on the season and dumps a popular homegrown player who seems to want to stay.
 
And more importantly, there are clubhouse concerns. What is Pedroia going to think after signing a discounted contract when he sees them dumping Lester after lowballing him? Is that what Pedroia signed up for? Are they going to be trying to compete next year, since they dumped their #1 starter and are filling the roster with cheap rookies? Are they going to be spending some of that Pedroia discount money on players? Sure doesn't look like it.
 
What about Napoli, who came back here to win with his bearded brothers? "yeah Nap we are dumping Lester to get a prospect after lowballing him and then bringing in more rookies next year. Not what you expected? Don't think we're going to win next year either? Too bad, shut up." What about Ortiz, who has one or maybe two years left and sees them lowball Lester and trade him away and go with rookies. That is quite a message to send to the clubhouse. Yes yes yes they should all shut up and play, they get paid so much money, etc., etc. but in the real world they are real people. And the front office sure seems to value their response to transactions, according to reports that players wanted that d-bag catcher cut and they wanted Peavy to not be traded. The front office seemed to listen to that. 
 
Trading Lester isn't as easy as pushing the trade button in fantasy baseball. There could be real negative off-field effects, and that will be part of the decision. And any offer would have to clearly beat the value this front office puts on high draft picks, which sure seems to be pretty high. It would have to be a big return and clearly outweigh not just the draft pick but also the off-field considerations. 

 

[smastroyin]

 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Bailey's contract averages just over 18 a year if you factor out this year which he was only arbitration eligible. He was also coming off a year where he made 32 starts, 209 IP, a 3.49 ERA, and a 3.31 FIP. The year before wasn't quite as good but it wasn't bad either. He has been a major disappointment this year, but I think you’re underselling him here.  If anything Bailey’s terrible year this year is another data point in what can go wrong with giving good pitchers big contracts. [/SIZE]

 
The problem is that Bailey has never had the top end performance that Lester did outside of that one year.
 
Here are comparisons of their FIP.
 

 
You can argue that you think Lester's uptick represents his future if you like.  But at least Lester has a valley with which to look back at and talk about his overall skill.  At best with Bailey when you sign that contract you are hoping that his 2013 is a new level of performance as he enters his late 20's (he's only 28 right now).  Discounting him to $18 million/year is kind of an exercise in ignoring the way the market works (hint, if Jon Lester had arbitration years remaining we wouldn't be having this conversation right now).

 

[MakMan44]

 
Exactly - is Bailey's 2014 much different than Lester's 2012?

Actually, I'd suggest that it is. 2012 is a complete outlier from the rest of his career, going by ERA+, while Bailey had a long history of below average ERA+ numbers before the last couple years. 
 
EDIT: smas making the same point, but with FIP. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

This says better than I could my feelings as a fan. This fan sent this to the Red Sox. Per Gordon Edes.


TORONTOHe didnt want his name to be used, because he likes to send ideas to the Red Sox and didnt want to risk being cut off. But a man who describes himself as a passionate fan of the club shared a recent e-mail he sent to the Sox front office, making the fans case for re-signing Jon Lester. He shared it with ESPNBoston; because its so well-stated, were sharing it with you.

Some input on Lester (and I know that none of it will be particularly novel, but you've often encouraged me to keep the inputs coming):

I know it's not my money and that Lester has to be viewed in the larger context. Creating an overall salary structure, the kids on the way up, the risk that he declines over time, etc.

But...even with all that, here's one vote in favor of going well above and beyond the comfort zone, if necessary.

Why:

1. He's a legit ace and there are so few of them in baseball.

2. He's a postseason warrior and we know that guys like that -- who raise their games in October -- are rare. He's done it enough for us to safely conclude that it's real in his case, like it was with Schilling.

3. He likely has the admiration and respect of all, or nearly all, of his teammates.

4. As a fan, I understood losing Ellsbury. The Yankees' offer was stupid money and Jacoby is a nice player, a very good player, who put up ONE sensational season. And nothing more, at least thus far. From what I have heard, he was not a popular guy on the team and was one of the few outsiders on last year's tight club. As a fan, letting Salty go made sense. As a fan, I could see both sides of the Drew situation.

Losing Jon Lester would be different. It would truly hurt. It would be a painful reminder of why it's not good to invest overly in anything but the laundry. That might be the harsh reality but sports are romantic and we fall in love with some of the players. Lester is one of them.

5. As a fan, losing Jon to the Yankees would be intolerable. Enough of that. Especially as a fan living down here, it just cannot be tolerated. The Boston Red Sox should not be a feeder club to the Yankees. Leave that for the Royals and A's and other small market teams.

6. Other money will be coming off the books; I think, and please excuse my boldness, that suffering one possible large overpay will not break the bank or make it impossible to put forth a roster than can compete for the title.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

History shows us, though, that a guy like Lester is going to the highest bidder

 
I think this comment needs both clarification and evidence. Clarification as to what you mean by "a guy like Lester," and evidence that history shows us guys like that go to the highest bidder. I don't think most big-ticket FA negotiations leave us with a comprehensive record of who bid what, so the evidence part seems like a challenge.
 
I'm not saying it's unlikely he'll go to the highest bidder--that's probably where the smart money is--but this seems a little too sweeping.

 

[dcmissle]

The effect of exceeding the CBT threshold is enough that they'd notice the difference. Like every other club besides the MFY and Dodgers, the Sox have decided not to go there.

Therefore, it isn't a question of spending money on Lester or pocketing it; it's a question of spending money on Lester or spending it on someone else. From what I've read in the 2015 payroll thread, it seems likely that committing $25mm a year to Lester and making material additions to bolster the offense are mutually exclusive goals.

And that would be taking the short view. This sport is printing money, and franchise valuations will be skyrocketing.

 

[alwyn96]

The effect of exceeding the CBT threshold is enough that they'd notice the difference. Like every other club besides the MFY and Dodgers, the Sox have decided not to go there.

Therefore, it isn't a question of spending money on Lester or pocketing it; it's a question of spending money on Lester or spending it on someone else. From what I've read in the 2015 payroll thread, it seems likely that committing $25mm a year to Lester and making material additions to bolster the offense are mutually exclusive goals.

 
It seems like this is the real issue to me. If the Red Sox are going to spend $25M, would you rather they spend it on a pitcher or a position player? I'd say position player, but the fact that there aren't as many great position players on the market as there used to be, and the fact that Lester came up with the Sox and there's a sentimental attachment make it a tough decision. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Isn't that mostly true this year?

 
This year they spent money stupidly.  Yet they're still in second place and 3 games out of the division.  Last year they didn't really sign anyone.  The last time they went on a half a billion dollar spending spree they won the WS.  The only thing saving us from complete disaster is that they rarely spend money wisely, but when you spend as much as they do you can cover up a lot of stupidity.  
 
This year they blew their load on 4 guys, none of whom has met expectations.  Yet they could easily make the playoffs.  I'd bet that we'll continue to see some "down" years as they implement this current strategy, but a down year for them is third place and missing the playoffs every 4 or 5 years.  If they ever figure out how to spend money smartly it's over.  So while it was fun to watch them in 2008 and 2013, let's not pretend that they're in any danger of going through a prolonged period of futility.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
The problem is that Bailey has never had the top end performance that Lester did outside of that one year.
 
Here are comparisons of their FIP.
 

 
You can argue that you think Lester's uptick represents his future if you like.  But at least Lester has a valley with which to look back at and talk about his overall skill.  At best with Bailey when you sign that contract you are hoping that his 2013 is a new level of performance as he enters his late 20's (he's only 28 right now).  Discounting him to $18 million/year is kind of an exercise in ignoring the way the market works (hint, if Jon Lester had arbitration years remaining we wouldn't be having this conversation right now).

 
Prior to 2011 I agree, but from 2011-2013 they look pretty similar to me.  Lester might get a slight edge, but all else being equial I also think you'd want the pitcher 3 years younger.  2014 is obviously huge advantage to Lester, but that was after Bailey was signed. 

 

[nattysez]

I'll play. 
 

Like Ellsbury? Oh wait.

 
Nomar, Damon, Pedro, Manny, Crawford, AJP, the CHB piece on Theo before he left the first time... the fact that they've gone easy on Ellsbury doesn't convince me that the Dentist has decided to take a new approach.  And JWH's running to WEEI to ensure everyone he didn't support the Crawford signing was another ridiculous chapter in the FO's behavior.
 
 

Red Sox were 4th in payroll in 2013 (153 million), the year after the Punto trade (when they were 172 million), and are 4th this year (162 million). WTF are you talking about?
 

 
You're making my point.  They needed to spend, I'd guess, about $20mm to have avoided playing without a competent starting C or back-up CF/RF for half a season.  I don't need them to spend like drunken sailors, but a team that makes this much money "making do" with AJP and Grady Sizemore was indefensible.  FWIW, I feel the same way about the Giants, who are desperately trying to avoid spending money at 2b to secure a playoff berth when they've spent the last few years printing money.  
 

Hiring Valentine was a colossal blunder. None of us have any way of knowing if it was a result of hubris. And it took them all of 1 year to fix their mistake.
 

 
The idea that the Valentine hiring was anything other than LL forcing Ben to hire someone, I don't know what to tell you.  If you believe the media, it's pretty clear that this is how it played out. 
 

There's a team 250 miles to the south that has put in a copyright claim on "classy." You can always go root for them.
 
 

 
Wanting the team I root for to do things the right way is not too much to ask.  Is it really that hard to have a civil discussion about this? 

 

[smastroyin]

 
Prior to 2011 I agree, but from 2011-2013 they look pretty similar to me.  Lester might get a slight edge, but all else being equial I also think you'd want the pitcher 3 years younger.  2014 is obviously huge advantage to Lester, but that was after Bailey was signed. 

 
Then you are now arguing the Red Sox should have made a 5/105 offer to Lester before the year started?  
 
At the end of the day, the point is that at worst they are similar pitchers and if the Red Sox do not want to compete for Jon Lester's services for dogmatic reasons, then given the way the market is trending, they will find themselves shut out of all discussion for top of the rotation (1/2) pitching.  If they have specific problems with Lester and are targeting someone else, that's fine.  But the idea that you can find a Lester replacement on the market for less than the Bailey deal is hard to imagine.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 Is it really that hard to have a civil discussion about this? 

A civil one? Sure. But a serious one? Where you try to convince us you're right to "loathe" this FO? Ehh.

 

[Stitch01]

 That was where I was going, but didn't want to seem too reactionary.
 
But it seems they're positioning the team with younger players, bringing down the player costs, taking less long-term risk, and maybe making the team more attractive to outsiders, just in case.
 
They're playing to full-houses, ticket prices are the highest in MLB, ad revs who knows, (I don't) but revenue growth outside of selling X, Holts, Vaz and Betts jerseys, is somewhat constrained.
 
Nah, too off the wall..

Too off the wall that they might sell?  I don't have first hand info and Im not saying they are selling, but I feel 100% confident in saying that its not off the wall and not off the table.

 

[Stitch01]

 
 And more importantly, there are clubhouse concerns. What is Pedroia going to think after signing a discounted contract when he sees them dumping Lester after lowballing him? Is that what Pedroia signed up for? Are they going to be trying to compete next year, since they dumped their #1 starter and are filling the roster with cheap rookies? Are they going to be spending some of that Pedroia discount money on players? Sure doesn't look like it.
 
What about Napoli, who came back here to win with his bearded brothers? "yeah Nap we are dumping Lester to get a prospect after lowballing him and then bringing in more rookies next year. Not what you expected? Don't think we're going to win next year either? Too bad, shut up." What about Ortiz, who has one or maybe two years left and sees them lowball Lester and trade him away and go with rookies. That is quite a message to send to the clubhouse. Yes yes yes they should all shut up and play, they get paid so much money, etc., etc. but in the real world they are real people. And the front office sure seems to value their response to transactions, according to reports that players wanted that d-bag catcher cut and they wanted Peavy to not be traded. The front office seemed to listen to that. 

 While I was one of the biggest skeptics of the argument that team play this year was affected at all by Ellsbury leaving and other offseason actions (above and beyond the loss of talent), I think losing Lester would be a real issue.  Not necessarily an insurmountable one, but there will definitely be damage repair to do with the existing veteran core.  I am very curious to see what plan B might entail.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
Then you are now arguing the Red Sox should have made a 5/105 offer to Lester before the year started?  
 
At the end of the day, the point is that at worst they are similar pitchers and if the Red Sox do not want to compete for Jon Lester's services for dogmatic reasons, then given the way the market is trending, they will find themselves shut out of all discussion for top of the rotation (1/2) pitching.  If they have specific problems with Lester and are targeting someone else, that's fine.  But the idea that you can find a Lester replacement on the market for less than the Bailey deal is hard to imagine.

 
I agree with all that.  I guess the only point I was agruing against was your argument that Bailey's contract should be an outlier.  I think Bailey earned that contract.  And this year he has become one of many data points showing why big contracts to pitchers are huge risks.

 

[dcmissle]

Too off the wall that they might sell?  I don't have first hand info and Im not saying they are selling, but I feel 100% confident in saying that its not off the wall and not off the table.

I think this is likely to gain lots of currency, fast. I think the likes of F &M and/or Shank have put a toe in these waters before. Then we'll have our distraction.

 

[jon abbey]

I'm pretty sure the Yankees will be signing both Scherzer and Lester. 

 
Come on, this isn't happening. They are paying the remnants of Sabathia through 2017 (probably) and Tanaka through 2019, and they're already around $160M for both 2015 (for 10 players) and 2016 (for 9 players) with plenty of holes in the lineup. I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to sign Lester or Scherzer, but zero chance they will sign both IMO. 

 

[dcmissle]

Every time Cashman makes similar pronouncements, he then does precisely what he said they would not do.

 

[Stitch01]

I think this is likely to gain lots of currency, fast. I think the likes of F &M and/or Shank have put a toe in these waters before. Then we'll have our distraction.

The good news, I guess, is that this idea should have had currency 12-24 months ago as well and last year didn't end up so bad. 

 

[jon abbey]

Every time Cashman makes similar pronouncements, he then does precisely what he said they would not do.

 
That's not true, but even still, he is not making a pronouncement here. I am, and I don't really think I'm going out on much of a limb to say that NY is not going to commit to 4 SPs at over $20M apiece for at least three years. Even if CC is done and Tanaka is out until 2016, I don't see any chance of this happening.

 

[dcmissle]

Too off the wall that they might sell?  I don't have first hand info and Im not saying they are selling, but I feel 100% confident in saying that its not off the wall and not off the table.

A very good argument can be made that unless they plan to flip the team soon -- and I mean, before FA starts -- the smart business play would be to extend Lester at the market, even now.

 

[bankshot1]

Too off the wall that they might sell?  I don't have first hand info and Im not saying they are selling, but I feel 100% confident in saying that its not off the wall and not off the table.

 
I was being a little facetious, but the steps they've taken this year, plus coming close to topping out on revenues, and now the half-assed Lester negotiation, maybe a contemplated sale of the team is not a crazy interpretation.
 
The Ownership/FO have more information and insights on Lester, the team, its prospects, competitors, future costs and revenues, the market for players, risk, risk reduction, diversification, than we as a collective group will ever have. on everything from peanuts, popcorn and pitchers, I think Lester could have been signed to a 5-6 year deal in ST at $20-$22MM per. Now people are throwing out 6-8 years at $25-28 per.And we know who the usual suspects are, and most of us are somewhat queasy at the thought of Lester in pinstripes. I think he's more a Glen plaid guy.
 
IMO the FO screwed up on their approach to Lester, whether they wanted him or not, that it suggests there is significant missing information, other than the FO's belief that Lester may have a down year when he's 34-36.
Do they believe that Owens is ready to pitch 200 innings next year?
Are the cost savings on Lester going to be used for a prime 25 YO bat?
Something just doesn't make sense.

 

[curly2]

I'll play. 
 
 
Nomar, Damon, Pedro, Manny, Crawford, AJP, the CHB piece on Theo before he left the first time... the fact that they've gone easy on Ellsbury doesn't convince me that the Dentist has decided to take a new approach.  And JWH's running to WEEI to ensure everyone he didn't support the Crawford signing was another ridiculous chapter in the FO's behavior.

 
Serious question: Did the FO really trash Pedro or Damon? With Pedro, I seem to remember a general consensus that ALL sides, The Red Sox, Pedro and the Mets all made the smart decision based for them. We all hated to see Pedro leave but understood that giving him a four-year deal to continue pitching in the AL  would not have  been smart.
 
And with Damon, it seemed the only ammo against him came from his own mouth, when he said he wouldn't sign with the Yankees. I don't remember a front-office hatchet job. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
...IMO the FO screwed up on their approach to Lester, whether they wanted him or not, that it suggests there is significant missing information, other than the FO's belief that Lester may have a down year when he's 34-36.
Do they believe that Owens is ready to pitch 200 innings next year?
Are the cost savings on Lester going to be used for a prime 25 YO bat?
Something just doesn't make sense.

 
The only thing that makes sense is that, like the Tigers, they bet on their soon-to-be FA having a down year and therefore be open to a discounted mid-season negotiation. A stupid bet in both cases. I go there because the only other explanation is that they had no intention of ever signing him (them). This makes a little more sense with the Tigers because of their rotation coming into the season and their assurance that Verlander would still be the ace.
 
What confuses me about the Red Sox is that almost all high-quality teams have an ace to anchor their staff. A Lesterless team would have none, and they knew this in April.
 
Aces:
 
Hernandez
Wainwright
Kershaw
Cueto
Darvish
Scherzer
Lester
Price
Weaver
Zimmerman
Shields
 
And some mild surprises:
 
Tehran
Kazmir
Tanaka
 
I don't know where the Giants, Orioles or Blue Jays stand in this, and I doubt the Yankees felt Tanaka would be more of an ace than Sabbathia...but competitive teams try to stack their rotation, and big market teams don't rely on B-quality starters or rookies to have unusually outstanding years as a matter of strategy.
 
A lot of people who follow the Red Sox minors think a good crop of kids are on a path to greatness, but that's not something to bank on. The Dodgers, Tigers, Mariners, Cardinals and many other teams carry front-line starters at big money (as do the Yankees, typically) with the A's and the Rays going a different direction with similar results.
 
I just don't know where the Red Sox are going with their plans.
 
{edit: I realize the list is incomplete and subjective, and that the statements are too broad - but it's still worthwhile discussing what the possible future plan is}

 

[Yaz4Ever]

 
Serious question: Did the FO really trash Pedro or Damon? With Pedro, I seem to remember a general consensus that ALL sides, The Red Sox, Pedro and the Mets all made the smart decision based for them. We all hated to see Pedro leave but understood that giving him a four-year deal to continue pitching in the AL  would not have  been smart.
 
And with Damon, it seemed the only ammo against him came from his own mouth, when he said he wouldn't sign with the Yankees. I don't remember a front-office hatchet job. 

and Nomar did it to himself by (seemingly) alienating himself (sitting on bench alone in NY leaps to my mind) moreso than anything from the FO.  Manny left on poor terms but again can't really fault the FO if he pushed an old man and especially considering he failed a drug test a year later (and I still LOVE Manny).  Crawford sucked, AJP sucked harder, and Theo I can't comment on.  Always thought he received too much credit for the success here, but the bad blood I'm sure came from both sides.
 
curly2 already responded correctly, imho, regarding Damon and Pedro.
 
In summary, wtf are you talking about nattysez?

 

[esfr]

 
I hate the way they do business.  I hate the need to crush every guy who leaves the team, I hate the fact that they are pocketing millions while using the Crawford/Beckett contracts as an excuse not to go after big FAs and pay Lester, I hate their arrogance -- the height of which was the hiring of Valentine, though if it turns out it's true they low-balled Lester, that may trump that hiring in terms of arrogance.  I respect the winning, but I hate how they go about it. 

 
I'm with you.  Frankly I'm shocked at how defensive so many people here are when the FO is criticized.  There is objectively a lot to criticize about how they go about the business of baseball.  It's separate and distinct from the results and though i respect the fact that the rings cures all for some it's not heretical to complain about the overall experience.  They have made some really awful personnel decisions (not just in hindsight but true industry-wide head scratchers) and put some terrible product on the field at times.  Take you pick - you can fault them for a) the "small-market" rhetoric or b) terrible return on the 4th largest payroll - both are brutally annoying to me.  Last year was as much fun without Pedro as i could ever imagine, and maybe its unfair but i hardly chalk that one up to the FO brilliance.  They obviously felt differently, and decided to tell the world that they had built a better mousetrap.  Seeing LL DFA would have more impact on my enjoyment than any player move.  

 

[snowmanny]

 
That's not true, but even still, he is not making a
pronouncement here. I am, and I don't really think I'm going out on much of a limb to say that NY is not going to commit to 4 SPs at over $20M apiece for at least three years. Even if CC is done and Tanaka is out until 2016, I don't see any chance of this happening.

FYI on December 26, 2013 you predicted the Yankees would not land Tanaka and would stay under the luxury tax threshold. What odds will you give on the zero chance Lester/Scherzer to the Yankees double play?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

A couple of points:
 
1. If the Yankees miss the playoffs, I think they'll calculate that landing the 2 best pitchers on the market will be a justifiable move. They're competing in the same universe as the Dodgers.
 
2.  It's a little deceptive saying the Red Sox have the 4th highest payroll in baseball, even though it's true. There's a big jump from the Dodgers-Yankees-Phillies versus #4, where things start to clump up (4-10).
 
3. I, for one, don't give the Red Sox a pass for 2013 because they were lucky enough to win the playoff crapshoot (particularly against the Tigers) and they saw the stars align on a bunch of regular season combination bank shots. That's not a strategy.
 
What is the strategy?

 

[soxhop411]

From the Sell thread
 
 

 
What you have to understand is that under Tony Clark, the Players Association has become heavily involved in all contract negotiations. They want players to get what they perceive as their fair market value, which means they would like to see the big players like Lester and Max Scherzer go to the market, get the bidding rolling and help players throughout the industry.”
 
For example, one National League team thought it had longterm deals with pre-arbitration players done, only to have the agents come back and say the union would not accept the deals; they finally reached agreements, but at higher numbers. One AL GM had the same experience. There are several general managers who felt that is why the Indians never reached a deal in March with Justin Masterson.
 
When the Red Sox sat down with Lester in March, he told friends he wanted one dollar more than Homer Bailey’s six year, $105M. Now, $140M doesn’t seem out of reach on the market. “I don’t see anything less than $120M at this point,” says one NL GM. “The union is not accepting hometown discounts.”

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-rays-faced-with-deadline-dilemma/
 
(h/t to mabrowndog)

 

[bankshot1]

 
The only thing that makes sense is that, like the Tigers, they bet on their soon-to-be FA having a down year and therefore be open to a discounted mid-season negotiation. A stupid bet in both cases. I go there because the only other explanation is that they had no intention of ever signing him (them). This makes a little more sense with the Tigers because of their rotation coming into the season and their assurance that Verlander would still be the ace.

The thing is the Tigers offered Scherzer 6/144 and he turned them down, and people were surprised. The Sox offered Lester 4/70 and the baseball world laughed. Hoping your best pitcher tanks so that you may save a few million $ a year sounds like a crappy fall-back plan to losing your Ace because you don't want to pay him market value, even if it is a 9 figure deal.
 
The smartest guys in the room, except maybe the locker-room, (those guys knew Lester's value), screwed up.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
3. I, for one, don't give the Red Sox a pass for 2013 because they were lucky enough to win the playoff crapshoot (particularly against the Tigers) and they saw the stars align on a bunch of regular season combination bank shots. That's not a strategy.
 
What is the strategy?

They were lucky! No credit for last year because you say so. Got it.
 
By the way--who's "giving them a pass"?

 

[dcmissle]

From the Sell thread
 
 
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-rays-faced-with-deadline-dilemma/
 
(h/t to mabrowndog)

As a legal matter, that is crap. The Union cannot nix a deal. So this sounds to me like agents who perhaps undersold their clients, then invoked the union to say, "sorry, can't do it."

Tony Clark is not running MLB.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

They were lucky! No credit for last year because you say so. Got it.
 
By the way--who's "giving them a pass"?

 
I didn't mean that they didn't bank goodwill for winning. I stand by the fact that luck was on their side both during the regular season and certainly in the playoffs (and that's true for many other teams). I contend that relying on luck isn't a strategy. Signing an ace (or two), or having legitimate aces in the system...that's a strategy.
 
Losing this year is easier to take because of last year, and that's been said a lot (including me)...it doesn't give them a pass to be cheapskates or to rely on an incorrect assessment of what "value" means in the new marketplace.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
I didn't mean that they didn't bank goodwill for winning. I stand by the fact that luck was on their side both during the regular season and certainly in the playoffs (and that's true for many other teams). I contend that relying on luck isn't a strategy. Signing an ace (or two), or having legitimate aces in the system...that's a strategy.
 
Losing this year is easier to take because of last year, and that's been said a lot (including me)...it doesn't give them a pass to be cheapskates or to rely on an incorrect assessment of what "value" means in the new marketplace.

This is fair--I think I thought you were referring to a post you weren't.
 
That said--to me, to the extent luck factored in last year, it does every year. They essentially ran away with the division, and while they did sweat the Detroit series, that isn't so rare for a great team. The 98 Yankees had to sweat CLE (a bit). I just have heard that line of thinking before and find it hard to believe they weren't one of the ~4 best teams in baseball last year, and I don't see anyone "relying" on luck.
 
Agreed on everything else.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
Losing this year is easier to take because of last year, and that's been said a lot (including me)...it doesn't give them a pass to be cheapskates or to rely on an incorrect assessment of what "value" means in the new marketplace.

"Value" and "cost" are two different concepts.  I would assume the FO is well aware of what Lester will actually cost.  Whether or not they have incorrectly assessed his value is another issue for which there is no answer yet.
 
And while I'm hardly a FO cheerleader, the idea that they've run the club thus far in "cheapskate" mode flies in the face of the evidence.  I'll gladly make a $50-to-Jimmy Fund bet that they will be within 10% of the luxury cap by opening day next season.

 

[Stitch01]

I don't think the Sox were particularly lucky last year either, although it isn't a permanent hall pass.
 
I think there's a good enough track record over the last ten years to wait and see what the plan is for '15 before getting too irate over losing Lester, but YMMV and the plan for sure may suck.

 

[dcmissle]

FYI on December 26, 2013 you predicted the Yankees would not land Tanaka and would stay under the luxury tax threshold. What odds will you give on the zero chance Lester/Scherzer to the Yankees double play?

Jon is good. but Cashman is in the Hall of Fame of misdirection.

It was an article of faith in NY that the threshold would not be passed; if Francesa said it once, he said it a thousand times.

Then there was the rare season a few years ago when the Yanks struggled mightily in the first half -- to the point that Cashman said they were unworthy off investment at the trading deadline. Viola, deadline deals.

Then, of course, there was the A-Rod drama and very public bridge burning. (Though they rue the contract today).

He does all this with the apparent sincerity of an altar boy. It's a rare gift that should be celebrated. When LL opens his mouth, everyone reflexively reaches for his wallet -- or a baseball bat.

 

[jon abbey]

FYI on December 26, 2013 you predicted the Yankees would not land Tanaka and would stay under the luxury tax threshold. What odds will you give on the zero chance Lester/Scherzer to the Yankees double play?

 
I have been right more often than not about NY's moves in recent years, but I was way wrong about pretty much everything regarding them this past offseason in large part because I don't think they really knew what they were doing from day to day. It's hard to predict the moves of a front office that literally does things like offer Beltran and Choo contracts simultaneously and tells them whoever agrees first, they will sign, and the other offer is void. I'm not giving you odds, feel free to come back and mock me if NY actually signs both Lester and Scherzer. 

 

[someoneanywhere]

 
I didn't mean that they didn't bank goodwill for winning. I stand by the fact that luck was on their side both during the regular season and certainly in the playoffs (and that's true for many other teams). I contend that relying on luck isn't a strategy. Signing an ace (or two), or having legitimate aces in the system...that's a strategy.
 
Losing this year is easier to take because of last year, and that's been said a lot (including me)...it doesn't give them a pass to be cheapskates or to rely on an incorrect assessment of what "value" means in the new marketplace.

geo, no personal offense to you at all, sincerely, but this is dumb. For one, you can't stand beside the fact of luck, because it is not a fact. Two, no one on this board would disagree with you and say luck is a strategy, any more than highly gifted and highly paid executives believe it is a strategy. And three, the team you call lucky, and the organization you say needs to sign a couple of aces to prove it has a strategy (as if the proof of strategy is more important than the proof of actually winning something) beat Price, beat Verlander, won both games started by Scherzer, and beat Wainwright twice on the way to the title. Aces, all four of them.

Let's stop with the luck crap. The 162 games weeds that out. The postseason might be a crapshoot -- but it's a crapshoot among very good baseball teams.

 

[maxotaur]

I wonder this as well.

I wonder why it was ok to sign Pedroia to a 6/84 contract that begins with his age 32 season.

I wonder where they will find these under 30 players to spend money on, especially if they aren't bidding on the Tanakas and Darvishs of the world.

Finally, I wonder if it's really a better/safer use of assets to pay Stanton $200,000,000 once you factor in the 18 years of Betts/Swihart/Owens they would also give up.

I'm very ok with the Pedroia signing. Consider the contract will be finished at Ortiz' current age.

And certainly I would be very happy to have Stanton on the team. I just get a little frustrated though at his name eventually popping up on every single board. I've never heard a single whisper ANYWHERE aside from this site that leads me to believe he might be headed here. Is there a chance? Sure - we have probably have the pieces to make a deal but we act like he's our Manifest Destiny.

Can we wait just a bit until he might even be available before we figure out where he's batting in our line up?

 

[Corsi]

Olney: Red Sox blew Lester deal in Spring Training.  Would've taken $105M then.  With the Sox fading in the standings, Lester could be the biggest name on the trade market.  Dodgers and Cardinals looking for pitching.  
 
Stark:  Don't see it happening.  They'll keep trying to sign him.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Stark: Phillies scouted Red Sox AA team because the Sox called about Cole Hamels.

Wouldn't mind adding him and signing Lester to go for it all in 2015. Depends on price of Hamels though.