Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
Stark was speculating that trading for Hamels would be a cheaper option than resigning Lester, not that the Sox are looking to add both.
Well said. Especially because the Marlins have a better record than the Red Sox.
Last year, I published a paper in a major journal. I got a good 2013 performance rating because of it. I can't write down the same paper in my 2014 performance review and have it count again. Last year was great, but it's over. This year's team sucks. There should be accountability for those failures, including adjustments to the strategy and changes in personnel.
Last year, I published a paper in a major journal. I got a good 2013 performance rating because of it. I can't write down the same paper in my 2014 performance review and have it count again. Last year was great, but it's over. This year's team sucks. There should be accountability for those failures, including adjustments to the strategy and changes in personnel.
I think the idea is that a Hamels trade would happen in the offseason after Lester signs somewhere else.RedOctober3829 said:
Yeah, but they are in a bad spot now and the best way out of it is to play several hands.RedOctober3829 said:
You try to deal with Lester while gauging the cost of Hamels. If Lester won't deal, or if his cost proves too high, then you build Lester's value as high as you can and then spin those prospects to the Phillies for Hamels.
Is it worse than dealing more sensibly with Lester in Feb? Of course, but that's water under the bridge. Is it better than losing Lester to the Yanks for a comp pick? Yes.
Last year I was the top sales rep for my company for the third time in 10 years. This year I may be one of the worst. Should I be let go, or should some benefit of the doubt be given that perhaps I know what I'm doing and that it was just a shit year?Plympton91 said:
Regardless, the front office has screwed this entire situation from the start and it's going to blow up in their faces.dcmissle said:
Such a conclusion may of course be justified. I would call 2006 and 2010 such years for the Red Sox. This year had its share of bad luck, but poor planning and poor decision making that was noted ex ante by many also contributed to the season effectively ending before the trading deadline.Oil Can Dan said:
One such ongoing disaster of a decision is the topic of this thread. Failing to get an agreement with Lester prior to this season is some combination of a misread of the market, a misread of his likelihood of success in 2014, and an inflexible misguided policy of not signing good players once they turn 30.
Maybe they pull a rabbit out their hat. I hope so.
If it were me, I''d strike the best deal I could with Lester right now. Maybe they will. But in any case, this may be out of their control and it doesn't make sense to sit there passively and just let things happen.RedOctober3829 said:
Obviously he didn't tell the Red Sox he would sign for that, as he wanted more than that.soxhop411 said:
"Hey, I'm hoping to get $125 million or more from you, but I just thought I'd mention that $105 million is the very minimum I would accept, so why don't we do that instead?"
He has a professional agent, you know.
Why counter when the Red Sox offer was $50 million below what he was hoping for? Their offer wasn't serious and didn't deserve a response. It was a lame attempt to "anchor the negotiations at that level" so if you respond to it then it sort of works. Much smarter to just ignore it and give them a chance to get serious, which the Red Sox apparently never did. It really looks like the Red Sox never wanted him back at a realistic contract, which is really puzzling.
Yaz4Ever said:
I concede that if you ignore the attacks on Tito, Theo, Manny, AJP, and JWH's assertion that he never wanted to sign Crawford, it is definitely hard to understand what I'm talking about. You got me - well played.
Oil Can Dan said:
"For the first 7 years of my career, I was almost always one of the top 5 salespeople in the company, and I was the best in the company twice. In 2011, I was well on my way to being the best salesperson before completely cratering in Q4. Since then, I've been the best salesperson in the company once and one of the worst in the company twice."
I wouldn't fire you, but you'd definitely be on the hot seat for 2015.
But in reality, the Sox farm is so well-stocked that I'd be willing to live through another down year next year if it looked like the kids would be ready to do serious damage in 2016, with the FO filling in a couple of holes (likely in the rotation) as needed.
These analogies are incredibly stupid but what the hell, let's do it.
That'd be perfect, but it's worth noting that the entire "company" tanked in Q4 2011, not just that one employee. And over the course of the year, that employee's performance was still quite above average.
As for the next sentence about being the worst in the company twice, no idea what the hell that means. How about excellent one year, slightly above average one year, and the worst one year. That'd at least be accurate.
nattysez said:
That'd be perfect, but it's worth noting that the entire "company" tanked in Q4 2011, not just that one employee. And over the course of the year, that employee's performance was still quite above average.
As for the next sentence about being the worst in the company twice, no idea what the hell that means. How about excellent one year, slightly above average one year, and the worst one year. That'd at least be accurate.
I've had the privledge of sitting down with him multiple times in my life and being able to pick his brain. Gammo has more knowledge about the game and to a lesser extent music than anyone can realize. That being said I think one big thing that has to be looked at is who the player is. Lester has been extremely healthy throughout his career (besides the cancer treatments) and has been a big part of two World Series titles. Is also a front of the rotation left handed entering the prime of his career. It's a lot different than say giving Carl Crawford 142 million when he had two main tools (speed, defense) and questionable makeup. Or Adrian Gonalez similar money who was coming off shoulder surgery and hasn't been the same since his first year in Boston.bankshot1 said:
This is a known commodity and the landscape is changing. 30 million is soon going to become the new 20 million and 20 million will soon become the new 10. TV revenue has never been higher. It's not the same as giving out 140 million 10 years ago. If anything the team will probably be risk adverse on years. They'll match price but probably not years.
RedOctober3829 said:
Because Hamels is owed less than $100M over the next 4 years (including option buyout) and Lester wants 6+; there's also the matter of not knowing just what the total cost on Lester would be. ($150M? $180M? $200+M?). Everyone is way too hung up on their own (probably incomplete) narratives of what happened and what they think should've happened with extending Lester, and I'd bee much more disappointed if the FO wasn't looking at alternatives now.
The Sox have a lot of talent in the high minors and it is not all going to play in the home whites (or even be good enough to make an impact in the majors). Trading some of them is going to have to happen just to clear the roster spaces, and after what Ammaro got for Lee I think I like the Sox chances of making a deal they like are pretty good. Stanton or Tulo are nice fantasies, but neither is likely able to be acquired without giving up prospects the Sox are unwilling to deal.
Manny wasn't attacked; he was the one doing the attacking (two incidents), and then refusing to suit up in the middle of a pennant race. And who really cares about AJP and Crawford?nattysez said:
Unless Ben can pull a starting/high quality OF prospect/bat off in exchange for renting out Lester it will be a completely different scenario then when they were praised for showing restraint with Ells.
Not lester related but Henry's comments about CC and wanting on the team were nothing short of the ultimate back stab. CC was overpaid the second he finished signing the contract but for JH to buckle on a radio show (I think D and C) and say well it wasn't me who wanted to pay him 140 mill plus for 7 years is 1) just hard to believe and 2 ) classless
I'm very angry that it looks like Lester will be out of town. If the FO wants to field high upside Pawtucket( which generally I'm on board with ) the TICKET prices need to drop which they've been loath to do at all.
The Boston Red Sox should and need to spend big money. They are not the rays or royals. Henry can say everything about a "plan" but more often then not you get what you pay for.
Not lester related but Henry's comments about CC and wanting on the team were nothing short of the ultimate back stab. CC was overpaid the second he finished signing the contract but for JH to buckle on a radio show (I think D and C) and say well it wasn't me who wanted to pay him 140 mill plus for 7 years is 1) just hard to believe and 2 ) classless
I'm very angry that it looks like Lester will be out of town. If the FO wants to field high upside Pawtucket( which generally I'm on board with ) the TICKET prices need to drop which they've been loath to do at all.
The Boston Red Sox should and need to spend big money. They are not the rays or royals. Henry can say everything about a "plan" but more often then not you get what you pay for.
OCD SS said:
I'm still trying to understand how trading multiple very good prospects for Hamels and letting Lester walk makes more sense than paying Lester, despite the fact that it could be for two years longer than Hamels' deal, and then using those prospects to acquire another need.
Which looks better:
1. Lester for 6 years plus elite OF bat or another SP; or
2. Hamels for 4 years plus comp pick
Paying prospects plus 90 million over 4 years for Hamels versus just money(albeit a lot of it) for Lester isn't the way to go about this. Lester is the better pitcher and should be retained.OCD SS said:
And while they obviously know what they are doing and deserve some benefit of the doubt - they've won three titles and had two other years where the team was as good as anyone else - it's not like they've been following the same "plan" all along. There are moves and signings they made in the past that are are perhaps off-limits,
and they may not win the WS last year without at least one of those (Lackey).
So I think it's fair to say they've earned some slack while at the same time maintaining some level of skepticism about whether their new "organizational philosophy" is really workable. Especially since we do not know how they define their philosophy.
and they may not win the WS last year without at least one of those (Lackey).
So I think it's fair to say they've earned some slack while at the same time maintaining some level of skepticism about whether their new "organizational philosophy" is really workable. Especially since we do not know how they define their philosophy.
Has the Sox front office earned some "benefit of the doubt" in terms of how they go about their business? I would say 3 World Series titles in 10 years means absolutely yes; not many other teams in the modern era can claim that track record of success.
Is it fair to question individual moves the Sox front office has made over this same time period? Again, absolutely yes. Debating and discussing these moves keeps the board busy, so there's that.
Is it fair to question the Sox current philosophy with regards to long term contracts for players over 30? To a point, yes. No matter what happens with Lester, however, John Henry makes are pretty strong argument about how teams end up overpaying for players during their typical decline years.
Is it right to wonder if the Sox screwed up the Lester situation? Absolutely. Regardless of whether one agrees with the team's overriding philosophy, there are good arguments that the Lester situation has not been handled all that well. Then again, the situation is still fluid, and we may not really know for quite some time if the strategy was indeed the correct one or not. While the situations are admittedly very different, the Sox did make the right move when they declined to offer Pedro the extra year after 2004.
Does their down year in 2014 mean that the FO must implement wholesale personnel changes in response? That premise is so silly that it's almost hard to respond without bursting into tears of laughter.
Is it fair to question individual moves the Sox front office has made over this same time period? Again, absolutely yes. Debating and discussing these moves keeps the board busy, so there's that.
Is it fair to question the Sox current philosophy with regards to long term contracts for players over 30? To a point, yes. No matter what happens with Lester, however, John Henry makes are pretty strong argument about how teams end up overpaying for players during their typical decline years.
Is it right to wonder if the Sox screwed up the Lester situation? Absolutely. Regardless of whether one agrees with the team's overriding philosophy, there are good arguments that the Lester situation has not been handled all that well. Then again, the situation is still fluid, and we may not really know for quite some time if the strategy was indeed the correct one or not. While the situations are admittedly very different, the Sox did make the right move when they declined to offer Pedro the extra year after 2004.
Does their down year in 2014 mean that the FO must implement wholesale personnel changes in response? That premise is so silly that it's almost hard to respond without bursting into tears of laughter.
jimbobim said:
Like, you know, 3 World Series rings in the past 10 years.
My personal opinion is everyone is overreacting to the possible loss of Lester. Yes, Lester is very good but he's no Kershaw. It will sting when he walks, but it's not going to break this franchise for years to come. He is on the wrong side of 30, after all. If Lester walks it's because the front office doesn't value him as much as SoSH does. They also have a lot more data to back up their assertions than we do and, quite frankly, I'm inclined to side with the people who brought 3 WS rings to Boston.
I agree with everything stated here. As much as I wanted Ellsbury back, as he went the offense did too, the deal was silly. Even as I proposed a possible trade of another star on the team that met with a lot of addament opposition, I believe Lester to be an important part of the staff going forward especially with what is likely to be several young/rookies breaking into the rotation within two years (I'd guess at least three and I'm counting De La Rosa (With Ranaudo and Owens the other prime candidates).bankshot1 said:
Some information is missing here.
Jaylach said:
I want Lester back and think it's rather silly to not pay him, given what the Sox have coming through the farm system. They can afford him.
That said, if they rolled out a rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, RDLR, Hamels, and Ranaudo, I wouldn't exactly be crying over it.
Jaylach said:
I love the rings and I do give them the benefit of the doubt but lets not pretend the 04 07 13 (which doesn't happen without Lester at the top of the rotation just a fact) teams didn't have some big money stars on the team. Also those rings potentially never happen if Theo and ownership had gotten their wish when they put Man Ram on waivers for anybody to have.
As for the wrong side of 30 stuff with lester and 4 year deals for pitchers look no further then Garza and Ubaldo that's the type of drop off in quality on the FA market your looking at unless your going to trade some of hoarded prospects for Hamels.
OCD SS said:
Yes, but trading some of them to fill a hole we didn't necessarily need to have is not easy to swallow. Stanton may or may not be a "fantasy," but the fact remains that a high-offense corner outfielder is a real need for which there's no obvious internal option, and trading for Hamels will make that hole harder to fill.
You can make the argument that Henry is right to draw the line wherever they're drawing it with Lester, but if they then turn around and give up multiple legit prospects to get basically the same pitcher on the same money for two fewer years, that seems kind of inefficient, to put it mildly.
RedOctober3829 said:
No, that is far too simplistic and Lester should not be retained at any cost. At this point there is no way to know what Lester's price tag is; if the difference is $60M (or more) against Lesters age 35, 36 and on seasons, then I think limiting the exposure to risk by trading for Hammels looks more reasonable. The prospect cost for Hammels is the variable, but I would tend to believe that the Sox FO is looking to deal B+ type guys, of which they have too many coming through the pipe so some will be used in trade.
glennhoffmania said:
So you don't see trading Lester for prospects as an option at all? Regardless, I find these options too limited and nebulous; you have no way of knowing which prospects it will take to get Hammels or which ones would be required to get that elite OF bat or another SP, or even who that elite OF bat or other SP might be. I don't think you're getting Stanton or Tulo or anyone else for anyone I'd don't want to give up (X, JBJ, and Swihart from the other thread).
I also think way too many people are assuming that Lester's health is as close to guaranteed as a SP gets based only on his track record, and I'm inclined to cut the FO some slack on this evaluation since they have actual information on the subject. IIRC everyone thought Roy Halladay was sure to age like fine wine as well...
Accounting for the Hamels option year, (400 IP in '17 and '18 or 200 IP in '18, no DL at year-end) its likely a 5/114 contract. So maybe they avoid that toxic 6th year.
Hamels may be a good replacement for a departing Lester, and maybe the best fix for the hole at the top of the rotation, but when the prospect cost is figured in, its a massively expensive replacement. Inefficient is a kind.description. But it might be the best solution.
Hamels may be a good replacement for a departing Lester, and maybe the best fix for the hole at the top of the rotation, but when the prospect cost is figured in, its a massively expensive replacement. Inefficient is a kind.description. But it might be the best solution.
OCD SS said:
Well you're not going to get as much for Lester as you'd have to give up for Hamels. I'm pretty sure there's a link somewhere saying that the Phillies would demand at least 3 top prospects.
There's also the issue that there's a very good chance that Lester is better than Hamels. Plus the option issue that Bankshot mentioned.
OCD SS said:
I guess it depends on what your definition of a B+ guy is. by most people's definitions, that would mean Betts, Swihart (as A/A- guys), Owens, Marrero, and maybe Devers. If you are counting all the guys like Webster, RDLR, Renaudo, as "B+" and the Phillies are too then obviously that's a lot less cost. But I expect the Phillies will be looking for a lot for Hamels because of all the reasons people here want him as a Lester alternative. They have better ways to shed salary if they are only getting salary relief and a couple guys like Webster. My best guess at the Phillies ask for Hamels would be Swihart, Owens, and a lottery ticket. Obviously the Sox would be loath to pay that, but some other team might jump at it.
I suppose there is also a chance that someone will give you a Samardzija like package for Lester because they are only interested in winning this year without having a commitment to the future. This will eat into a bunch of the acquisition cost of Hamels.
Why give up top prospects for Cole Hamels when you can just extend Lester for comparable money? It makes little sense. Hamels probably gets one less year than Lester would, since he's already 2 years in and has the 2019 option that vests if he remains healthy, but come on this is a no-brainer. Is the FO just so embarrassed with the way they handled negotiations earlier that they are going to try to paint Lester as the bad guy, rather than just re-sign him? Lester has proven himself in this market, in this division, with this franchise in the playoffs, and he's been in the Sox system his entire career. Why make the swap at all? If you're going to spend that much money on Hamels anyway, just pay Lester.*
* If the Sox FO is getting some absolutely incredible offers from teams that would actually allow the Sox to end up with Hamels + another star prospect or two for Lester, even after prospects are exchanged with the Phillies, I can see their thinking. That's the big unknown to all of us, exactly what the market is on Lester. Still, Lester has been so good, it's quite debateable if the prospects are even worth it. I suppose it would depend on the prospects, now wouldn't it?
I posted this a few minutes ago in the trade deadline thread, then saw Abs' note and moved it here.
* If the Sox FO is getting some absolutely incredible offers from teams that would actually allow the Sox to end up with Hamels + another star prospect or two for Lester, even after prospects are exchanged with the Phillies, I can see their thinking. That's the big unknown to all of us, exactly what the market is on Lester. Still, Lester has been so good, it's quite debateable if the prospects are even worth it. I suppose it would depend on the prospects, now wouldn't it?
I posted this a few minutes ago in the trade deadline thread, then saw Abs' note and moved it here.
glennhoffmania said:
All good points, but you have to set these parameters against the possibility that Lester will get more than 6/$150M; right now the FO is doing due diligence, which strikes me as a rational, disciplined way to run a team, vs. everyone screaming to just give Lester a blank check*, which doesn't.
* Yes, I know that no one has actually used the phrase "blank check", but unless you're setting parameters on what you will pay Lester you may as well be.
OT, but I think they got exactly what they wanted -- a Manny who was chastened and focused on being a better player and teammate. It's probably not coincidence that those attributes waned again when he became a 10/5 guy and the Sox no longer had the tacit threat of exiling him to baseball Siberia.jimbobim said:
No one was going to take on that big contract without doing so much as a physical exam first, so there was no real risk of him being claimed.
My thinking is that Lester doesn't want comparable money, he wants a fair bit more than that. That's the only way it makes sense, because digging your feet in over a 6th year when they're looking at possible 5 for Hamels doesn't make sense.
OCD SS said:
Sure, we're all discussing the issue based on what we know or think we know or are guessing. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that Lester would take the deal that Scherzer rejected based on his comments at the time. So that's 6/144 for Lester plus keeping all of the prospects, or either 4/96 or 5/110 for Hamels minus the difference in prospects with the risk that Hamels simply isn't as good as Lester has been. This is also assuming that the PR hit some people here have talked about wouldn't cause the FO to not trade Lester no matter what, in which case we're back to talking about a comp pick.
4 for Hamels after this season.MakMan44 said:
And I think the Phils are more likely to trade Lee than Hamels -- they'll get less in return, but fans will understand that Lee isn't likely to be a key part of the next good Phillies team.
The Hamels option year shouldn't bother us. If he's healthy / good enough to pitch that much then the option year will be a bargain.
Also we actually have excess prospects and Hamels / Lee are proven high quality pitchers.
What does concern me about Hamels / Lee is the transition to AL East & Fenway is tough. But I'm less concerned about media microscope with him b/c they've been through it.
I would pay "market rate" for Lester whatever that is (but not crazy dollars). To the extent durability is predictive he has it empirically plus he's a big strong guy with relatively easy repeatable motion. And doesn't throw it 95+. That is qualitatively indicative of durability. I've noticed that bringing in a pitcher from outside is always a wildcard b/c it is a tough adjustment to AL East & Fenway and media microscope. Plenty have failed. Some who've succeeded, like Lackey, took time to adjust. Basically, I think the fact that Lester is proven here makes him worth more than the same quality & durable pitcher brought in from the outside.
It's also tough to say you're trying to win in 2015 if you don't re-sign your best starter, assuming it can be done at "reasonable" money & years.
And, if you're trying to win in 2015 then a Lester re-signing shouldn't be mutually exclusive with a trade for Lee / Hamels (luxury tax / budgeting constraints permitting).
Also we actually have excess prospects and Hamels / Lee are proven high quality pitchers.
What does concern me about Hamels / Lee is the transition to AL East & Fenway is tough. But I'm less concerned about media microscope with him b/c they've been through it.
I would pay "market rate" for Lester whatever that is (but not crazy dollars). To the extent durability is predictive he has it empirically plus he's a big strong guy with relatively easy repeatable motion. And doesn't throw it 95+. That is qualitatively indicative of durability. I've noticed that bringing in a pitcher from outside is always a wildcard b/c it is a tough adjustment to AL East & Fenway and media microscope. Plenty have failed. Some who've succeeded, like Lackey, took time to adjust. Basically, I think the fact that Lester is proven here makes him worth more than the same quality & durable pitcher brought in from the outside.
It's also tough to say you're trying to win in 2015 if you don't re-sign your best starter, assuming it can be done at "reasonable" money & years.
And, if you're trying to win in 2015 then a Lester re-signing shouldn't be mutually exclusive with a trade for Lee / Hamels (luxury tax / budgeting constraints permitting).
He has a fifth year option at $20m that vests if he's 200+ innings during the season prior to the option year and 400+ for the two seasons prior to the option year. I don't think you make the deal in the first place if you don't think you can get that from him during the back half of the contract.maufman said:
I think it's worth repeating the Hamels vesting option over and over and over again because people keep talking about the 4 year deal.
We all know he is guaranteed $22.5 million for each of the next four years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).
Here is the deal with 2019. He has a clause around being healthy at the end of 2018 (no shoulder or elbow injury) and pitching 400 IP between 2017 and 2018, and 200 IP in 2018.
If he fails to meet that:
You either buy out 2019 for $6 million
Or you take the team option for $20 million
If he meets that criteria:
His option vests and he gets $24 million.
So you have as possible outcomes:
4 years, $96 million (and if you aren't willing to pay him he is probably toast and has been) This also means that Hamels counts for $24 million against the "luxury tax threshold" for each of those years no matter which path you take.
5 years, $110 million (and you are risking that his injury is behind him)
5 years, $114 million
There is no such thing as a 4 year, $90 million "remaining" deal for Cole Hamels. And yet it keeps getting repeated.
Also, not that it's a big deal, but he does have a clause allowing him to pick 20 teams each year to which he can block trades.
We all know he is guaranteed $22.5 million for each of the next four years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).
Here is the deal with 2019. He has a clause around being healthy at the end of 2018 (no shoulder or elbow injury) and pitching 400 IP between 2017 and 2018, and 200 IP in 2018.
If he fails to meet that:
You either buy out 2019 for $6 million
Or you take the team option for $20 million
If he meets that criteria:
His option vests and he gets $24 million.
So you have as possible outcomes:
4 years, $96 million (and if you aren't willing to pay him he is probably toast and has been) This also means that Hamels counts for $24 million against the "luxury tax threshold" for each of those years no matter which path you take.
5 years, $110 million (and you are risking that his injury is behind him)
5 years, $114 million
There is no such thing as a 4 year, $90 million "remaining" deal for Cole Hamels. And yet it keeps getting repeated.
Also, not that it's a big deal, but he does have a clause allowing him to pick 20 teams each year to which he can block trades.
- Status