Extending Lester

[glennhoffmania]

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.
 
Here is the deal with Cole Hamels and 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)
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.

 
Exactly.  So if Hamels performs and holds up as well as he has to to earn that contract, and assuming Lester would take 6/144, then we're talking about one more year and $30m spread out over 6 years.  Is that difference really worth letting Lester walk, trading for Hamels, and crossing your fingers that he can pitch in the AL East as well as Lester?

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Exactly.  So if Hamels performs and holds up as well as he has to to earn that contract, and assuming Lester would take 6/144, then we're talking about one more year and $30m spread out over 6 years.  Is that difference really worth letting Lester walk, trading for Hamels, and crossing your fingers that he can pitch in the AL East as well as Lester?

 
We really don't know how much Lester willing to "take", outside of speculation and unverified leaks. 
 
Maybe he wants 7/200 mil, or 8+ years. Nobody fucking knows - and that is the most frustrating thing about this affair. 

 

[vintage'67]

 
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.                                           
 
 
 
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...

With respect to the bolded, a question to to OCD SS and others who are in favor of or more agreeable to the idea of trading for Hamels:  Are you factoring in the cost of trading these prospects?  As part of that cost, I see the reduced chance that the Sox get a major league contributor(s) out of the current group of prospects.  We know all these guys won't succeed in MLB, and trading some away reduces the odds.  Even organizations that are very good at identifying prospect talent (do you think Boston is such an organization?)  miss plenty.  We know that this is a risk for every trade, but to me it is more important in the scenario where they might let Lester walk and they replace him by trading for Hamels.  They can retain Lester and the prospects.  Keeping the prospect allows them to increase the odds that the group will contribute in MLB, or the prospects can be used to fill a hole or two that currently exists in the depth chart, as others have pointed out.  

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
We really don't know how much Lester willing to "take", outside of speculation and unverified leaks. 
 
Maybe he wants 7/200 mil, or 8+ years. Nobody fucking knows - and that is the most frustrating thing about this affair. 

 
Lester has repeatedly said he would "take less," and presumably does value his relationship with the fans and city of Boston at least a little bit. I have to believe that if the Sox offered him 6/150, he would almost be forced to take it. He can't talk about home-town discounts and then refuse such an offer without losing face, even if his agent knows there are offers of 7/180 out there (which, of course, he shouldn't).

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
We really don't know how much Lester willing to "take", outside of speculation and unverified leaks. 
 
Maybe he wants 7/200 mil, or 8+ years. Nobody fucking knows - and that is the most frustrating thing about this affair. 

 
We can only go by what he's said.  This is from around opening day about the Scherzer offer:
 
“That stuff is hard to comment on because you don’t know,” Lester told reporters Wednesday in Fort Myers, Fla. “I’m not him. I don’t ever want to talk bad upon anybody. That’s his decision. If he comes in and he takes six years for $40 million, that’s his decision. I’m not going to bad mouth anybody. They have their own beliefs, their own mindset, their own representation, and so I mean personally, if that’s me, that’s hard to walk away from. That’s hard to walk away from.

 

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Lester has repeatedly said he would "take less," and presumably does value his relationship with the fans and city of Boston at least a little bit. I have to believe that if the Sox offered him 6/150, he would almost be forced to take it. He can't talk about home-town discounts and then refuse such an offer without losing face, even if his agent knows there are offers of 7/180 out there (which, of course, he shouldn't).

 
What does "less" actually mean? Compared to Kershaw? 
 
There's a whole lot of room for interpretation there. 

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Do we really have any idea of what the Phillies would be asking for Hamels? If they're simply looking to dump salary, prospects should be minimal. I think that would be more the case for Cliff Lee, but I don't really know what they are expecting to get for Hamels. If we can get Hamels for marginal prospects and trade Lester for something decent that can then be moved on to pick up Stanton from the Marlins, I would be all over it, obviously. I don't think the Phillies will accept marginal prospects for Hamels.

 

[jacklamabe65]

My mindset is go all out for Lester in the off-season; no trading for Hamels under any circumstances - keep the prospects; and take the draft pick if we lose out on Lester. This is a front office clusterfluck that really can't be fixed and please everyone.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Do we really have any idea of what the Phillies would be asking for Hamels? If they're simply looking to dump salary, prospects should be minimal. I think that would be more the case for Cliff Lee, but I don't really know what they are expecting to get for Hamels. If we can get Hamels for marginal prospects and trade Lester for something decent that can then be moved on to pick up Stanton from the Marlins, I would be all over it, obviously. I don't think the Phillies will accept marginal prospects for Hamels.

 
I can't imagine they'd view it as a salary dump.
 

 
Cole Hamels isn’t likely to be dealt either. It’s not that the Phillies aren’t willing to move him, it’s just that the prices they’ve specified consist of packages “that no one would possibly give up.”
 

 
Link

 

[JimD]

I'm reading the Hamels rumors as a message to Lester's camp - if you're going to push this to free agency, the window for Jon to return may close before then.
 
I also believe that if Jon Lester actually was willing to sign a $105,000,001 six-year deal in spring training, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[smastroyin]

I think it is definitely within the realm of possibility that if the Red Sox had made that offer, there would be no thread.  But I don't think he would have been willing to have his agent go to the Red Sox and say that.  Maybe he is a poor negotiator or whatever, but it feels more to me like he wanted the Red Sox to put that offer forward as a matter of their faith, and not to be treated to negotiation dramatics.  
 
In other words, while we may think it is stupid, it probably matters a lot to Jon Lester that the Red Sox make the offer without him asking for it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
I also believe that if Jon Lester actually was willing to sign a $105,000,001 six-year deal in spring training, this thread wouldn't exist.

 
That's a 50% increase over the initial offer.  So what do you do if your Lester and that's the opening bid and your bottom line is 105m?  Do you counter with 6/140 and then quickly say, but we can split the difference?  The problem is that the first offer was so ridiculous that to end up at 105m seems pretty tough unless Lester counters with 6/105 take it or leave it. 
 
The guy said he wants to finish his career in Boston and wants his contract to reflect that.  They then offer a contract that takes him through age 34.  It was a non-starter.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

In other words, while we may think it is stupid, it probably matters a lot to Jon Lester that the Red Sox make the offer without him asking for it.

 
Coming soon to a bookstore near you: Ben is from Mars, Jon is from Venus.
 
Seriously, I wish I could say this sounds implausible. We may think it is stupid, but then, people tend to be kinda stupid.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

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.

The reason the Sox FO might find this more appealing than a Lester six year deal at whatever is simply that the downside is fully known. If he gets the fifth year, it means that he has, at least, been durable.

I would be very surprised if Lester's camp gives similar protection to a team for the back end of his next contact. It really is those last two or three years that present the greatest downside risk.

One other thing - people keep talking about dollars here but I think its the length of the contract rather than the size that is the issue for the Sox. If Lester was willing to do four years/$120mm I wouldn't be shocked the Sox FO agreed to that deal.

 

[snowmanny]

The reason the Sox FO might find this more appealing than a Lester six year deal at whatever is simply that the downside is fully known. If he
gets the fifth year, it means that he has, at least, been durable.

I would be very surprised if Lester's camp gives
similar protection to a team for the back end of his next contact. It really is those last two or three years that present the greatest downside risk.

One other thing - people keep talking about dollars here but I think its the length of the contract rather than the size that is the issue for the Sox. If Lester was willing to do four
years/$120mm I wouldn't be shocked the Sox FO agreed to that deal.

That would mean they don't want to gamble $24Million on his 2019/2020 age 35/36 seasons.
(BtW they have no problem gambling $25Million on Pedroia's 2020/2021 age 36/37 seasons. Obviously the totality of the contracts would be quite different).

 

[ivanvamp]

Let's say Lester could be had for 6/130 ($21.7m per year).  Break it down thusly:
 
2015 (age 31) - 23 m
2016 (age 32) - 23 m
2017 (age 33) - 23 m
2018 (age 34) - 22 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m
2020 (age 36) - 19 m
 
Six years, $130 million, with age 35 and 36 years totaling $39 million.  
 
Ok, so the Sox don't want to commit to that.  Fair enough.  But then we're led to believe that they're serious about trading for Cole Hamels.  Here's Hamels' contract:
 
2015 (age 31) - 22.5 m
2016 (age 32) - 22.5 m
2017 (age 33) - 22.5 m
2018 (age 34) - 22.5 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m (or 24 m vesting option)
 
Five years, $110-114 million, depending on 2019.  So they don't want to spend $130 on Lester, but they're willing to spend $114 for Hamels.  They don't want to spend $20 million for Lester's age 35 season, but they're willing to spend as much as $24 million for Hamels' age 35 season.  And in order to do this, they're willing to trade two or three of their very good prospects.
 
THIS. MAKES. NO. SENSE. TO. ME.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Let's say Lester could be had for 6/130 ($21.7m per year).  Break it down thusly:
 
2015 (age 31) - 23 m
2016 (age 32) - 23 m
2017 (age 33) - 23 m
2018 (age 34) - 22 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m
2020 (age 36) - 19 m
 
Six years, $130 million, with age 35 and 36 years totaling $39 million.  
 
Ok, so the Sox don't want to commit to that.  Fair enough.  But then we're led to believe that they're serious about trading for Cole Hamels.  Here's Hamels' contract:
 
2015 (age 31) - 22.5 m
2016 (age 32) - 22.5 m
2017 (age 33) - 22.5 m
2018 (age 34) - 22.5 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m (or 24 m vesting option)
 
Five years, $110-114 million, depending on 2019.  So they don't want to spend $130 on Lester, but they're willing to spend $114 for Hamels.  They don't want to spend $20 million for Lester's age 35 season, but they're willing to spend as much as $24 million for Hamels' age 35 season.  And in order to do this, they're willing to trade two or three of their very good prospects.
 
THIS. MAKES. NO. SENSE. TO. ME.

The fifth year of Hamels contract has a team option in two forms. They can either buy him out or pay him if he has been effective. There's a bit of value to that.

 

[Plympton91]

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. 

This would be a better argument if the Red Sox had actually offered Lester as much as they'd have to pay Hamels. The offer to Lester is 4/$70; Without the option, Hamels has 4/$90 remaining. If the Red Sox think Lester is worth $4 million a season less than Hamels, I'd question their sanity.

With the option, Hamels will cost 5/$114. We have a report from one of the most connected reporters in the game that Lester would have taken 6/$105 in spring training. If so, then a Hammels equivalent offer of 5/$114 would have easily sealed the deal.

They blew this negotiation, unless as Hot Rod has been saying, they really did not want Lester back at any realistic price or term.

 

[glennhoffmania]

This would be a better argument if the Red Sox had actually offered Lester as much as they'd have to pay Hamels. The offer to Lester is 4/$70; Without the option, Hamels has 4/$90 remaining. If the Red Sox think Lester is worth $4 million a season less than Hamels, I'd question their sanity.

With the option, Hamels will cost 5/$114. We have a report from one of the most connected reporters in the game that Lester would have taken 6/$105 in spring training. If so, then a Hammels equivalent offer of 5/$114 would have easily sealed the deal.

They blew this negotiation, unless as Hot Rod has been saying, they really did not want Lester back at any realistic price or term.

 
I totally agree, except that Hamels is guaranteed at least 4/96 if you include the buyout.  So the Sox must think that Lester is worth 6.5m less than Hamels per year.  I don't even need to question their sanity.  I think it's pretty clear.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
I totally agree, except that Hamels is guaranteed at least 4/96 if you include the buyout.  So the Sox must think that Lester is worth 6.5m less than Hamels per year.  I don't even need to question their sanity.  I think it's pretty clear.

I actually believe Lucchino when he said the Sox were prepared to go in the neighborhood of 5/100, so it's not quite that bad (however, I am increasingly convinced that he purposely omitted say that 5/100ish is as high as the Sox were ever going to go--before, during or after the season).  
 
They screwed up when they tried to set themselves up for a 5/100 finish line by shorting on both years and AAV in their initial offer.  However, and as much as I can understand why they didn't, Lester's camp might have avoided all of this by coming back with a realistic, but enough-for-Lester offer (6/110-120?) and made it clear that there wasn't much negotiating left to do on their counter.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Anybody else feel like the Hamels stuff is just a way to say "See, it wasn't about money, we were willing to add Hamels--we're willing to pay someone, it's just that Lester is being unreasonable."
 
That's if the trade and Lester don't happen, obviously.

 

[gammoseditor]

Anybody else feel like the Hamels stuff is just a way to say "See, it wasn't about money, we were willing to add Hamels--we're willing to pay someone, it's just that Lester is being unreasonable."
 
That's if the trade and Lester don't happen, obviously.

 
No, just my opinion, but I think there could be lots of reasons more likely as to why there are Hamels rumors out there.  I think the most likely scenario, which someone else pointed out in this thread, was to get Lester back to the table and force his side to make a realistic counter.  It could also be that the Sox were checking in on Hamels to see if they could get him cheap, knowing they might lose Lester but also with the idea that they could have them both.  There's is easily enough money for both.  Or maybe the Phillies were trying to trade him somewhere else and leaked that the Red Sox were interested to force another team to up their offer.  I think there are lots of possible reasons for the Hamels rumors to be out there.  The Red Sox not actually being interested and also trying to make Lester seem unreasonable doesn't seem very likely. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I totally agree, except that Hamels is guaranteed at least 4/96 if you include the buyout.  So the Sox must think that Lester is worth 6.5m less than Hamels per year.  I don't even need to question their sanity.  I think it's pretty clear.

 
Opening at 4/70 does not mean they think he is worth 4/70.  It means they thought it was a good starting point for negotiations with a home town discount in play.  There's a world of difference there.  You can argue that 4/70 was too low of a starting point, and I'd agree with you, but that does not mean they think that's what Lester was worth then or is worth now.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Projecting what Lester will be offered on the open market, I doubt he's very concerned with whatever the Red Sox might do to pressure him. He holds all the cards...and an extra deck.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Opening at 4/70 does not mean they think he is worth 4/70.  It means they thought it was a good starting point for negotiations with a home town discount in play.  There's a world of difference there.  You can argue that 4/70 was too low of a starting point, and I'd agree with you, but that does not mean they think that's what Lester was worth then or is worth now.

 
You can spin it however you want.  If you had a contract for your job that was about to expire and your boss came to you and said, "hey Snod, we'd love to have you stay here and we can pay you $50k", when you know that other people who are arguably less qualified than you are making 50% more, what does that say to you about how much they value you?
 
There's no world of difference here.  Hamels and Lester are exactly the same age.  Hamels got his deal 2 years ago.  Salaries have only gone up since then.  And the Sox' first offer to Lester was more than 50% lower than what Hamels got, give or take depending on how the option plays out.  If they thought he was worth significantly more than 4/70 then they have a funny way of showing it.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Negotiations don't start out at fair value and get tweaked a little in one direction or the other.  At least, not with really high profile organizations and individuals like this. Your work analogy doesn't really play here, because comparing the average schmuck at the average job with Jon Lester as a premium pitcher at the major league level as though it should scale is ridiculous.
 
Teams start low with guys like this all the time.  The Red Sox started too low here and it's blowing up in their faces, but you simply cannot back up the claim that the Red Sox actually value Lester at 4/70 when it's based on the initial offer made in spring training with the expectation of a counter.  If you are going to pin your argument to a number, the reported 5/100 is more defensible since it is also from the Sox and is more recent.

 

[OCD SS]

Let's say Lester could be had for 6/130 ($21.7m per year).  Break it down thusly:
 
2015 (age 31) - 23 m
2016 (age 32) - 23 m
2017 (age 33) - 23 m
2018 (age 34) - 22 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m
2020 (age 36) - 19 m
 
Six years, $130 million, with age 35 and 36 years totaling $39 million.  
 
Ok, so the Sox don't want to commit to that.  Fair enough.  But then we're led to believe that they're serious about trading for Cole Hamels.  Here's Hamels' contract:
 
2015 (age 31) - 22.5 m
2016 (age 32) - 22.5 m
2017 (age 33) - 22.5 m
2018 (age 34) - 22.5 m
2019 (age 35) - 20 m (or 24 m vesting option)
 
Five years, $110-114 million, depending on 2019.  So they don't want to spend $130 on Lester, but they're willing to spend $114 for Hamels.  They don't want to spend $20 million for Lester's age 35 season, but they're willing to spend as much as $24 million for Hamels' age 35 season.  And in order to do this, they're willing to trade two or three of their very good prospects.
 
THIS. MAKES. NO. SENSE. TO. ME.

 
 
On the other hand, what if Lester's numbers are like this:
 
2015 (age 31) - 25 m
2016 (age 32) - 25 m
2017 (age 33) - 25 m
2018 (age 34) - 25 m
2019 (age 35) - 26 m
2020 (age 36) - 26 m
2021 (age 37) - 28 m
 
Seven years, $180 million, with age 35 - 37 years totaling $80 million. Does it at least start to make a little more sense?

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
On the other hand, what if Lester's numbers are like this:
 
2015 (age 31) - 25 m
2016 (age 32) - 25 m
2017 (age 33) - 25 m
2018 (age 34) - 25 m
2019 (age 35) - 26 m
2020 (age 36) - 26 m
2021 (age 37) - 28 m
 
Seven years, $180 million, with age 35 - 37 years totaling $80 million. Does it at least start to make a little more sense?

 
It's entirely possibly that they do look like that.  But we have zero evidence, reports, or anything to suggest that.  As far as I know there are two pieces of evidence.  One is that he at one point mentioned Bailey's deal.  The second is his comments about Scherzer's offer.  So why should we have discussions about some phantom contract demand that has nothing to back it up?
 
The two data points we have are 6/105 and 6/144.  Anything in that range is extremely reasonable from Lester's point of view.  He may end up getting 7/180, but I'd bet a decent chunk of change that those kind of numbers would never have been mentioned by Lester's side back in March.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
It's entirely possibly that they do look like that.  But we have zero evidence, reports, or anything to suggest that.  As far as I know there are two pieces of evidence.  One is that he at one point mentioned Bailey's deal.  The second is his comments about Scherzer's offer.  So why should we have discussions about some phantom contract demand that has nothing to back it up?
 
The two data points we have are 6/105 and 6/144.  Anything in that range is extremely reasonable from Lester's point of view.  He may end up getting 7/180, but I'd bet a decent chunk of change that those kind of numbers would never have been mentioned by Lester's side back in March.

 
Those comments were when Lester was a full year away from free agency and before he turned in a career year heading into free agency.  It's pretty clear the price has gone up.  Especially off reports that the Red Sox were prepared to approach that 6/105 offer.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah that's why I said "back in March."

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
On the other hand, what if Lester's numbers are like this:
 
2015 (age 31) - 25 m
2016 (age 32) - 25 m
2017 (age 33) - 25 m
2018 (age 34) - 25 m
2019 (age 35) - 26 m
2020 (age 36) - 26 m
2021 (age 37) - 28 m
 
Seven years, $180 million, with age 35 - 37 years totaling $80 million. Does it at least start to make a little more sense?

A proposal like that is the metaphorical dog that didn't bark.  I've said it in other threads; if Team Lester proposed numbers like that at any point during the process, they would have been leaked by now.  Doubly true since the 4/70 offer is hanging around the FO's neck like a mill stone.

 

[gammoseditor]

Yeah that's why I said "back in March."

 
Sure, but you're using March numbers as evidence a conversation about what it would take now.

 

[snowmanny]

No, he's using March numbers to indicate that the Red Sox March number was of no useful benefit -and probably very negative benefit- in a negotiation where Lester wanted an offer in the general range of the established market place.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah what Snowmanny said.

 

[snowmanny]

I think there are three options:

1) The Red Sox royally screwed up.
2) The Red Sox don't want him back but are too chicken to say it and want to make it look like they really tried.
3) 2, but John Henry gets all poopy-pantsed at the criticism he's getting and they sign him for
about 6\150 instead of the 5\105 he probably would have taken four months ago so back to 1.

I'd say 2 is the most likely option.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
It's entirely possibly that they do look like that.  But we have zero evidence, reports, or anything to suggest that.  As far as I know there are two pieces of evidence.  One is that he at one point mentioned Bailey's deal.  The second is his comments about Scherzer's offer.  So why should we have discussions about some phantom contract demand that has nothing to back it up?
 
The two data points we have are 6/105 and 6/144.  Anything in that range is extremely reasonable from Lester's point of view.  He may end up getting 7/180, but I'd bet a decent chunk of change that those kind of numbers would never have been mentioned by Lester's side back in March.

 
The bolded certainly indicates what he's looking for now. 

 

[dcmissle]

I think there are three options:

1) The Red Sox royally screwed up.
2) The Red Sox don't want him back but are too chicken to say it and want to make it look like they really tried.
3) 2, but John Henry gets all poopy-pantsed at the criticism he's getting and they sign him for
about 6\150 instead of the 5\105 he probably would have taken four months ago so back to 1.

I'd say 2 is the most likely option.

That's the most depressing door. If you believe it, own it. And if you are going to own it, fan the market for him and deal him now.

That does not preclude parting company with him in a class way. Again, see the St Louis Cardinals and Pujols.

I can understand and quickly get over screw ups. Everyone has those. Door #2 is chicken shit.

 

[snowmanny]

Eh. The second bolded sentence looks like present tense but then gets qualified by his mentioning March in the next sentence. I read it differently than you read it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yes, let's clarify.  If they had offered anything between Bailey's deal and Scherzer's offer in March/April, the deal is done.  And most importantly this thread doesn't exist.
 
Today we have no idea what he'd ask for.  It's still entirely possible that Scherzer's offer gets it done.  It's also possible that OCD's example of something like 7/180 is his number, but I really doubt that.  There's no way that was his number back in March.
 
The fact that the FO is toying with, or at least pretending to have interest in, Hamels makes this whole situation pretty ridiculous for all of the reasons previously discussed. 
 
According to Lester negotiations have not continued so it's not like he gave the Sox a number and they felt it was too high.  Again, all we know is he's referenced Bailey and Scherzer.
 
If the Sox offer him 6/144 right now and he says no, and that's their limit, I could understand that.  I wouldn't agree but I'd understand. But the fact that they've made no offers since the completely pointless 4/70 proposal in March is very confusing and disconcerting.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
If the Sox offer him 6/144 right now and he says no, and that's their limit, I could understand that.  I wouldn't agree but I'd understand. But the fact that they've made no offers since the completely pointless 4/70 proposal in March is very confusing and disconcerting.

The only thing I can make of it is that the FO is well aware that their absolute best offer is going to be Dead On Arrival.  All they can do at this point is stall for time and hope that Lester comes back to Earth and drags down his market price over the next few months.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

That's the most depressing door. If you believe it, own it. And if you are going to own it, fan the market for him and deal him now.

That does not preclude parting company with him in a class way. Again, see the St Louis Cardinals and Pujols.

I can understand and quickly get over screw ups. Everyone has those. Door #2 is chicken shit.

I agree about exploring a trade if they have no interest in resigning Lester. I suspect his name has come up in conversations over the past few weeks but we may never know for sure.

That said, the last thing they are going to do is come out and say they don't want him back. It doesn't help his trade value. More importantly, the Sox still retain the option to negotiate with him until free agency starts and things may change. Why burn that bridge now?

 

[snowmanny]

Well, if it's obvious they aren't going to offer him market-rate and he is going to leave, shouldn't they trade him?

 

[TomRicardo]

I think there are three options:

1) The Red Sox royally screwed up.
2) The Red Sox don't want him back but are too chicken to say it and want to make it look like they really tried.
3) 2, but John Henry gets all poopy-pantsed at the criticism he's getting and they sign him for
about 6\150 instead of the 5\105 he probably would have taken four months ago so back to 1.

I'd say 2 is the most likely option.

 
This misses one key point, 4 months of Lester pitching better than he has done over 4 consecutive months of any season in his career.  Maybe in the spring they were worried that Lester was not going to give them the consistent season he has.  He got close in 2011 then blew up in September between beer and KFC runs.

 

[Hoplite]

Well, if it's obvious they aren't going to offer him market-rate and he is going to leave, shouldn't they trade him?

 
Yes, assuming they can get a return better than a compensation draft pick.

 

[MakMan44]

 
This misses one key point, 4 months of Lester pitching better than he has done over 4 consecutive months of any season in his career.  Maybe in the spring they were worried that Lester was not going to give them the consistent season he has.  He got close in 2011 then blew up in September between beer and KFC runs.

That's probably likely, and it's been brought up before in this topic. 
 
The problem is, now that they know Lester can be this consistent, they don't seem to be making a real effort to offer him a market value deal because that's what it's going to take at this point. 

 

[snowmanny]

 
This misses one key point, 4 months of Lester pitching better than he has done over 4 consecutive months of any season in his career.  Maybe in the spring they were worried that Lester was not going to give them the consistent season he has.  He got close in 2011 then blew up in September between beer and KFC runs.

That is true. Personally I'm not at all surprised by his performance this season.  If you want to throw in an option of "They thought he was only worth 4/70 but now are happy to pay 6/150 but that's not a royal screw-up" you certainly can.  Although I'd still regard it as a royal screw-up.

 

[gammoseditor]

That is true. Personally I'm not at all surprised by his performance this season.  If you want to throw in an option of "They thought he was only worth 4/70 but now are happy to pay 6/150 but that's not a royal screw-up" you certainly can.  Although I'd still regard it as a royal screw-up.

 
I think they started at 4/70 hoping to end around the Homer Bailey deal and Lester's side decided to stop talking money for whatever reason.  Either Lester didn't think they'd come up to his price or he decided he was feeling great and was going to increase his value this year.  FWIW I still see this as screwing up. 

 

[OCD SS]

No, he's using March numbers to indicate that the Red Sox March number was of no useful benefit -and probably very negative benefit- in a negotiation where Lester wanted an offer in the general range of the established market place.

I don't find this to be particularly useful to the discussion of what's happening now. Lamenting a mistake and gnashing teeth does nothing to fix the present situation, unless you think 6/$105+1 is still on the table.

My response was to Ivan who couldn't understand why the Sox FO wouldn't just sign Lester given how close the numbers look. My numbers are fanciful, but IIRC within the range that certain reports have sourced from some anonymous GMs. If they represent what Lester expects now after this stellar 4 month run, then I think they go a long way towards explaining the FO's interest in Hammels.

 

[ivanvamp]

The point is, OCD, that it makes no sense to not want to sign Lester to a 6/130 but TO want to have Hamels with his contract, especially when you consider the haul of prospects they'd need to give up to get Hamels.
 
If they don't want to spend that kind of money for a 30+ year old pitcher, then it doesn't matter if his name is Lester or Hamels - they shouldn't want either.  

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

The point is, OCD, that it makes no sense to not want to sign Lester to a 6/130 but TO want to have Hamels with his contract, especially when you consider the haul of prospects they'd need to give up to get Hamels.
 
If they don't want to spend that kind of money for a 30+ year old pitcher, then it doesn't matter if his name is Lester or Hamels - they shouldn't want either.  

 
Once again, the Sox reluctance to sign Lester is likely more a length of contract thing than a dollar issue.  If they could get Lester to sign a four year plus option year contract like the one Hamels has, they would likely pay up to keep him.  
 
Here is what they are likely thinking if they have one or the other and they both get hurt at, say age 34: paying a guy $24mm+ (which is likely what Lester will get) a year for two years for a guy who broke down/blew out his arm at age 34 is not cheaper or as cheap as being able to buy a guy out for $6mm if he breaks down at age 34, which is what you get with a Hamels contract.  In other words, their downside for a bad back-end of a Lester contract is approximately $40mm more expensive than a bad back-end to a Hamels contract.  
 
I know many folks here disagree with the approach but those acting like this doesn't make any sense are ignoring the downside.  And you really need to consider downside when discussing large contracts for players over 30.  If you aren't the Yankees or Dodgers, they can be a massive weight on your organization.