HriniakPosterChild said:
But if we think six guaranteed is too much, this should make us happy, right? I mean, if it's a good idea, we should do it. If it's not a good idea, we should welcome the prospect of one of our rivals doing it.
Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
But if we think six guaranteed is too much, this should make us happy, right? I mean, if it's a good idea, we should do it. If it's not a good idea, we should welcome the prospect of one of our rivals doing it.
Savin Hillbilly said:
If, hypothetically, we think years 1-5 are going to be worthwhile, while year 6 isn't, that doesn't mean we should want the Yankees to get the good years 1-5 just because the Red Sox weren't willing to (hypothetically) waste the money on the 6th year while the Yankees were.
Basically, that would only matter in a world where the Yankees had any sort of set payroll limit where it might actually impact them in that 6th year.
Savin Hillbilly said:
You know it's not that simple. First, he'll still be a good pitcher for at least the first three or four years of that deal and that could cost the Sox wins. Second, it's not like having an overpaid, underperforming Lester in 2020 is going to prevent NY from signing Fernandez or Walker or someone else who becomes available.
glennhoffmania said:
The fact that he will still be a good pitcher for the early part of a six-year deal is no more or less compelling a reason for the Yankees to make that deal than it is for the Sox.
And while it may be true that the Yankees will be less constrained in future signings by having overpaid for a declining veteran than the Sox will be, that doesn't really make such a signing better for the Yankees in itself; it just means they may be less vulnerable to its downside. If it's a bad deal in value terms, we should still be glad they're making it.
There's only one realistic argument against my point, I think, which is if Lester is worth more to the Yankees than he is to us because, as a lefthanded pitcher, he will have better home park performance in pinstripes. In that scenario a given contract would provide better value per dollar for the Yankees than to us, and therefore a deal that would be bad for us could be good for them. It's possible there's a grain of truth in this, but I doubt it's really a consequential difference.
Savin Hillbilly said:
If I was in charge I'd give Lester six years. I think the possibility that the back end of the deal becomes a problem is the price you have to pay right now for quality pitching. So in terms of the value of the deal in a vacuum I agree with you.
But I think you're understating the importance of how it may constrain each team in four years or so. The vulnerability to the downside is a huge consideration and probably the main reason that Ben is hesitant to wrap this up today. I really doubt that he's worried about paying Lester $20 million in 2015 if he's only really worth $18 million, for example. If we were talking about him signing with Baltimore or Toronto then it's a different story. The playing field is not even and that has to be taken into account when looking at the various outcomes.
Savin Hillbilly said:
If something isn't going to have as big of a negative impact on them as it would on the Red Sox, and meanwhile they're going to be the ones getting the benefit of the good parts of it, then, no, we shouldn't be glad they're making it.
I see what you're getting at this this argument - if it's bad, surely we should want them to do it, because it's bad. But, there are different levels of how bad something is, and how bad something is for a particular team. Something which might be disasterous for, say, the Astros or Marlins, might just be a minor inconvenience for the Yankees. Obviously we're much closer to the Yankees than the Marlins or Astros are, but it's the same general idea.
For another example - as enjoyable as it is to laugh at the whole Alex Rodriguez saga, I would much rather he have gone to another team when he opted out of his contract, and for the Yankees to have not won the World Series in 2009. And, obviously Rodriguez' contract is much more of a hinderance to the Yankees than a 6th year of a potentially lower-quality Lester would be.
terrisus said:
I think what you and ghm are both missing is the opportunity cost factor. The Yankees will be doing something with their money, regardless. They will be adding talent and spending money for it. If Jon Lester isn't in their rotation between 2015 and 2020, someone else will be. If they sign Jon Lester to a bad deal to fill that slot, they miss the opportunity to sign someone else to a better deal to fill that slot.
But OK, I'll grant you, the fact that their treasury is relatively bottomless does make a difference. Spending $120 million to get 18 WAR out of Jon Lester for six years is worse for them than spending $80 million to get those same 18 WAR out of some other guy (or some bunch of other guys), but it's not as much worse as it would be for a team to which $40M is big money. It may foreclose some options, but not as many as it would for some teams.
I've been thinking about this and the whole spending for WAR piece seems off to me.
Can't you actually afford to overspend on some WAR as long as the player is very good and useful since you are going to have a bunch of players on your team that will be "worth" many millions according to fangraphs but you won't be actually paying them much at all? It would seem to me that teams, while not wanting to go out and make foolish decisions on players like Carl Crawford, shouldn't be constrained to only paying players what they are "worth" because this will leave you missing out on most of the top free agents.
Why can't you realistically budget some of the "extra" money you get from guys who are under team control to veteran players who are going to cost you more. As long as your team is on average paying players what they are worth without ridiculous overpays then it seems like this financial strategy would work.
It seems to me that some of those deals that could be looked at as overpays based on WAR were vital to each of our titles over the last decade. I may be missing something here but I'll give some examples anyway and feel free to point out where I am incorrect.
I don't know how to make charts on here so I'll just list an example or two from each team using Fangraphs for WAR value.
2004
Manny was worth 12.8 million according to fangraphs. We paid him 20.5 million
2007
JD Drew was worth 7.5 million but we paid him 14 million.
Manny again, was worth 5.9 million but we paid him 17 million.
2013
Dempster was worth 6.3 million but we paid him 13 million.
Ok actually my point doesn't hold at ALL for 2013 because it seems like everyone we paid big money to played up to their contract or over and many of the guys we didn't pay big money to paid off as well. It seems like last season was kind of a perfect storm however, and I'm not sure it's very repeatable (as a model, not saying we won't repeat as champs.) My question to those who know and understand this better then me is, doesn't it make sense to pay more then the fangraphs "worth" of a player if you think that player is going to be at least very good and could help you make the playoffs or go all the way?
Can't you actually afford to overspend on some WAR as long as the player is very good and useful since you are going to have a bunch of players on your team that will be "worth" many millions according to fangraphs but you won't be actually paying them much at all? It would seem to me that teams, while not wanting to go out and make foolish decisions on players like Carl Crawford, shouldn't be constrained to only paying players what they are "worth" because this will leave you missing out on most of the top free agents.
Why can't you realistically budget some of the "extra" money you get from guys who are under team control to veteran players who are going to cost you more. As long as your team is on average paying players what they are worth without ridiculous overpays then it seems like this financial strategy would work.
It seems to me that some of those deals that could be looked at as overpays based on WAR were vital to each of our titles over the last decade. I may be missing something here but I'll give some examples anyway and feel free to point out where I am incorrect.
I don't know how to make charts on here so I'll just list an example or two from each team using Fangraphs for WAR value.
2004
Manny was worth 12.8 million according to fangraphs. We paid him 20.5 million
2007
JD Drew was worth 7.5 million but we paid him 14 million.
Manny again, was worth 5.9 million but we paid him 17 million.
2013
Dempster was worth 6.3 million but we paid him 13 million.
Ok actually my point doesn't hold at ALL for 2013 because it seems like everyone we paid big money to played up to their contract or over and many of the guys we didn't pay big money to paid off as well. It seems like last season was kind of a perfect storm however, and I'm not sure it's very repeatable (as a model, not saying we won't repeat as champs.) My question to those who know and understand this better then me is, doesn't it make sense to pay more then the fangraphs "worth" of a player if you think that player is going to be at least very good and could help you make the playoffs or go all the way?
It is hard to rejoice in an overpay by a rival for a player you want, especially when the overpay is likely deep in the contract. If Lester is worth five years, the sixth could push you to step away from the card table, but it doesn't make it a horrible deal. But the other reality is that the Yankees are at their payroll limit in theory, and if it weren't for the A-Rod suspension would be even more financially limited by bad deals, and that makes an overpay an advantage to us.
But thinking that Lester is going to fall somewhere between 5/100 and 6/150, and you expect him to be a good and healthy pitcher over that stretch, it isn't going to be a crippling overpay, and while you might enjoy the Yankees overpaying an aging pitcher in 2020, you have a lot of "I wish we had Lester" moments in the meantime.
I think that spending a few 2020 dollars too many is an okay thing to get Lester pitching for us as he has stated he wants to do. I would love if they announce 5/108, and I won't be broken hearted if they announce 6/138 even though I know it isn't a contract we will love in its final year.
If his current thoughts on what his hometown discount value is is way out of line, and we think we will have better top three starting pitching from our system without him within the next few years, you can draw your line and let him walk. But I don't think we sign a comparable free agent for less, and I think there is a risk that you don't have three better than Lester guys among Buchholz and the prospects, so the risk of losing him over minor future dollars to a direct rival is a little worrisome to me.
But thinking that Lester is going to fall somewhere between 5/100 and 6/150, and you expect him to be a good and healthy pitcher over that stretch, it isn't going to be a crippling overpay, and while you might enjoy the Yankees overpaying an aging pitcher in 2020, you have a lot of "I wish we had Lester" moments in the meantime.
I think that spending a few 2020 dollars too many is an okay thing to get Lester pitching for us as he has stated he wants to do. I would love if they announce 5/108, and I won't be broken hearted if they announce 6/138 even though I know it isn't a contract we will love in its final year.
If his current thoughts on what his hometown discount value is is way out of line, and we think we will have better top three starting pitching from our system without him within the next few years, you can draw your line and let him walk. But I don't think we sign a comparable free agent for less, and I think there is a risk that you don't have three better than Lester guys among Buchholz and the prospects, so the risk of losing him over minor future dollars to a direct rival is a little worrisome to me.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Sure, but then if/when Lester becomes a crappy pitcher they'll simply eat his remaining contract one way or another and sign someone else. If the Sox are on the hook for $20m+ per year and Lester becomes useless, I don't see them shrugging their shoulders and signing another high-priced pitcher to replace him. Just look at this past offseason. NY has awful contracts right now with ARod, Teixeira and Sabathia, yet they had no problem signing Ellsbury, McCann and Tanaka, among others. Why would signing Lester to a "bad" contract be any different?
glennhoffmania said:
To be fair, the Yankees were actually able to lower their salary by nearly $20 million thanks to Cano signing elsewhere and A-Rod's suspension. I would love for them to spend $20 million a year on Lester given that the likely alternatives are spending $25 million a year on Scherzer or trading for Cliff Lee. There simply aren't a lot of quality free agents available anymore. If the Yankees want to go bonkers on the Jon Lesters and Chase Headleys of the world, I fully support that.
As for how bad a 6/120 deal would be for the Sox to make, I guess it's a precedent Cherington may be uncomfortable with -- we all saw how quickly the Epstein Era went from holding the line to giving out (rather awful) megadeals. But if the expectation now is that at least two or three of the young arms will come through over the next five years, doesn't that make an overpay rather affordable? It assumes you let Lackey finish out, which seems pretty safe; that Doubront sinks or swims, but in either case is a few years away from getting a big payday and will probably be someone you can part with when he hits free agency; and that Buchholz is either living up to his potential and forcing a tough decision, or continuing to miss time and perhaps a bit more affordable or easier to let go of. By contrast, the Yankees' rotation already has two megadeals, and adding a third probably wouldn't hurt them too much but may prevent them from adding a fourth or fifth.
Really, though, for me I just don't know if I can stand seeing Lester in pinstripes. My judgment is 100% colored by this. Sorry.
Really, though, for me I just don't know if I can stand seeing Lester in pinstripes. My judgment is 100% colored by this. Sorry.
According to baseball ref, Lester is 12-5 lifetime against the MFY, and 9-3 in the Urinal (8-3 new Urinal).
LHSP has historically been at the core of the MFY pitching staffs.
The MFY will be all over Lester if he becomes a FA.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=lestejo01&year=Career&t=p
LHSP has historically been at the core of the MFY pitching staffs.
The MFY will be all over Lester if he becomes a FA.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=lestejo01&year=Career&t=p
Lester is not going to become a FA.
The Sox are going to sign him for a bit more than they want to because they cannot trust Clay Buchholz to be the anchor of the transition from this pitching staff to the next one.
The Sox are going to sign him for a bit more than they want to because they cannot trust Clay Buchholz to be the anchor of the transition from this pitching staff to the next one.
Yeah, I'm not yet in the hand-wringing crowd, either. I think the Sox have room to move on length and amount. 5 yrs, $90-100M total still seems like a reasonable point for both.
chrisfont9 said:
I've been giving this question some thought.
After a brief lull since the Papelbon/Ellsbury/Lester/Buchholz/Bard/Lowrie days, it's tremendous that the farm system has gotten back to producing useful young players in bunches (Nava, Xander, Bradley, Middlebrooks, Doubront), with more (Cecchini, Betts, a whole passel of young pitchers and catchers!) seemingly on the way. As we saw with the '07 club, perhaps the best Red Sox team ever, getting high-level production from pre-arb players is a key ingredient in roster construction. That pretty much goes without saying.
Farm productivity gives the team some flexibility to spend big money on some high-ticket items, especially as the Gomes/Victorino/Napoli/Peavy/Lackey/Sizemore deals age out of the budget. That leaves a core of Ortiz/Buchholz/Pedroia/Bogaerts/Bradley, supplemented by (optimistically) two of the young SP, Vazquez, Swihart and Middlebrooks and/or Cecchini. That's a pretty affordable core. That group will only cost something like $50m for nine or ten roster spots in 2016, for a DH, 2B, SS, CF, 3 SP, two catchers, and 3B.
I'm thinking in terms of the 2016 roster because that is the final year of the current CBA, and thus — if history is any guide — likely the last year of the $189 soft cap.
That leaves $130m-ish for the remaining fifteen spots. Those spots need to include a 1B, LF, and RF (unless one of those is Cecchini), two more SP (of whom one could be Doubront in his Arb2 year), bench IF (Betts?) and OF, one more bench player and a seven-man bullpen (which would likely include Tazawa and some number of the pitching prospects). That's an average of about $9m per roster spot for those fifteen spots, of which we're likely to fill at least four or five with pre-arb players. Basically, for each year of a pre-arb player we can add, we can have a $20m FA-type player during that year.
So I think it would be very possible to spend big to keep Lester in the continuing core, while also paying retail to add a high-impact bat by FA or trade (say, Giancarlo Stanton for one of the corner OF spots), and still come in well under the $189 threshold. But there are only so many big contract bullets in that gun: likely two or three. So Cherington needs to decide if Lester makes sense as one of those guys, or if he prefers other players. I think I would probably do it, in his shoes.
(Of course, if the injuries keep coming and the offense keeps "hitting" like it has, the question will be whether Cherington should deal Lester to the Mariners at the deadline for Dustin Ackley and Danny Hultzen.
) 
Forgive me if it's further upthread and I just haven't seen it, but is anyone else surprised that the Sox best offer thus far topped out at 4/70? I'm as big a fanboy / player should take the hometown discount guy as there is, but that's clearly WELL below market value for a guy like Lester. People on this board would have been thrilled with 5/100 and the Sox best offer isn't even sniffing that. In today's market, that's not even a serious offer.
Linkage just for posterity:
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/04/12/source-red-sox-most-recent-offer-to-jon-lester-for-four-years-just-more-than-70-million/
Linkage just for posterity:
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/04/12/source-red-sox-most-recent-offer-to-jon-lester-for-four-years-just-more-than-70-million/
I agree with the logic, but if we believe the parties statements that they will not negotiate during the season, then Lester might as well see what he can attract as a real FA.Rasputin said:
IMO2 the Sox offer was basically inviting Lester to open the FA door, to see what was out there.
A lot of posts from Saturday /Sunday got wiped- out, but I think most think the 4/70 offer was a low-ball.Quintanariffic said:
I frankly thought it a FU offer to Lester and did not really understand the rational behind it.
The Mariners are definitely not above repeating their mistakes, although at least Lester >>> Bedard.nvalvo said:
So I think it would be very possible to spend big to keep Lester in the continuing core, while also paying retail to add a high-impact bat by FA or trade (say, Giancarlo Stanton for one of the corner OF spots), and still come in well under the $189 threshold. But there are only so many big contract bullets in that gun: likely two or three. So Cherington needs to decide if Lester makes sense as one of those guys, or if he prefers other players. I think I would probably do it, in his shoes.
(Of course, if the injuries keep coming and the offense keeps "hitting" like it has, the question will be whether Cherington should deal Lester to the Mariners at the deadline for Dustin Ackley and Danny Hultzen.
Lester makes sense as one of the "bullet" guys as you eloquently described them. You can't ask for extended excellence, but you can at least insist on a kind of physical and performance dependability in such a sign (5-6 year commitment). Lester has that, and Buchholz obviously doesn't. Even if their health futures are unwritten, at least conventional wisdom weighs in favor of going after Lester.
I think the 4/70 offer was just to kick things off and see how much of a discount he was willing to give. There hasn't been any word that either side has been pissed off over everything so I rather suspect a lot depends on how well Lester does this year.
A caller on Felger & Mazz made a good point today - we may know only half the story here - what did the Lester camp present? That caller also wondered who presented terms first. It got me thinking.
As a bid price I certainly see 4/70-80 as unreasonably cheap for Lester. But what if the ask was 6/160 or 7/180? I doubt it was that high but who knows? Lester said he'd take Scherzer's 6/144 offer - does that mean he was asking for more but would be willing to settle for what Scherzer was offered?
Pure speculation but I still think a deal gets done. 4 guaranteed years at a 21-24M AAV. Two vesting option years at about the same AAV - first year easy to reach, second not so much.
As a bid price I certainly see 4/70-80 as unreasonably cheap for Lester. But what if the ask was 6/160 or 7/180? I doubt it was that high but who knows? Lester said he'd take Scherzer's 6/144 offer - does that mean he was asking for more but would be willing to settle for what Scherzer was offered?
Pure speculation but I still think a deal gets done. 4 guaranteed years at a 21-24M AAV. Two vesting option years at about the same AAV - first year easy to reach, second not so much.
So the 4/70 has to have been leaked by Lester's camp, right? I wonder how the FO feels about that bit of gamesmanship. They've got no one to blame but themselves, of course, but in could see them being ticked off that the negotiations have become public. Either way it's probably smart business by Lester's people.
Merkle's Boner said:
I can't imagine they'd be thrilled about it, but I don't see it as affecting negotiations negatively for Lester. In all likelihood, it was Lester's agent, or someone within the agency, who leaked it. It's not like Jon went on camera and said "the Red Sox only offered me 4/70" - in which case the Sox can, and should, be upset.
If anything, it might help Lester's cause, as I think most feel 4/70 is a huge underpay for him. It's not like he turned down 6/120 or anything. He'll have the court of public opinion on his side.
Quintanariffic said:
The offer to Lester is reminiscent of the offer to Ellsbury - one that they know can't be accepted.
I wonder if the Sox have made an organizational experiment to see if they can forego nine-figure free agent contracts and still win. You know, the NFL way. Maybe they are thinking that if they can draft and develop well and use free agency to fill holes rather than build teams, they can more consistently win instead of having dead years when all they can do is hope that someone takes bad contracts off their hands.
Tomase made reference that one club figures that 75% of long-term free agent contracts to pitchers in their 30s end up to be busts.
It's either that or they know something about Lester that we don't.
[SIZE=10pt]Honestly … Red Sox fans are so easy to get riled up, especially when the Yankees lurk in the background. The current ownership has been everything we could have wished for in 2001 and 300 percent more. The current general manager just unmade a bloated payroll and won a world championship in the process. They know what they’re doing and should have earned the trust of every fan of this team by now, but no. Let them try to act like running the team is a business concerning a contract for a fan favorite and it’s an easy week for sports radio and the mediots. Who needs all the facts? Those cheapskates. What an embarrassment. Just sign the man![/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]As I wrote on Sunday in a post that has been lost, it’s pretty easy for Lester’s agents to leak this, knowing that the current regime on Yawkey Way will not respond publicly. As others have noted, we have no idea what Lester’s ask was – maybe his idea of a ‘hometown discount’ was 6/$132. There was quite likely discussion of creative ways to structure a deal, but the Levinsons have no incentive to leak something that hurts their cause. Ben’s modus operandi thus far has been to overpay but limit the years, so I suspect there may have been a shorter deal discussed with a higher annual salary.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I guess it comes down to how much you trust Cherington and the Sox brass. Even after three world titles, even after the beloved 2004 team was disbanded and a new crop of stars brought on board to anchor the 2007 and 2013 teams and win again … there is an undercurrent of distrust on this board and in the general Red Sox fanbase that rears its head at moments like these. Theo was absolutely correct with his remarks about ‘feeding the monster’. Sox fans so often exhibit such an insecurity and a fear of losing what they have now and an unwillingness to trust the process, mixed with the typical Boston conviction that somebody is screwing them over. I trust Ben and believe that if there a fair deal to be had with Jon Lester, he will find it. I also believe that, whether Lester stays or not, Cherington will keep the team in contention for the foreseeable future. If that involves a step backwards because a player like Lester ultimately wants that big payday and the Sox don’t want to be the team signing the checks, so be it. YMMV.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Jim D.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]As I wrote on Sunday in a post that has been lost, it’s pretty easy for Lester’s agents to leak this, knowing that the current regime on Yawkey Way will not respond publicly. As others have noted, we have no idea what Lester’s ask was – maybe his idea of a ‘hometown discount’ was 6/$132. There was quite likely discussion of creative ways to structure a deal, but the Levinsons have no incentive to leak something that hurts their cause. Ben’s modus operandi thus far has been to overpay but limit the years, so I suspect there may have been a shorter deal discussed with a higher annual salary.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I guess it comes down to how much you trust Cherington and the Sox brass. Even after three world titles, even after the beloved 2004 team was disbanded and a new crop of stars brought on board to anchor the 2007 and 2013 teams and win again … there is an undercurrent of distrust on this board and in the general Red Sox fanbase that rears its head at moments like these. Theo was absolutely correct with his remarks about ‘feeding the monster’. Sox fans so often exhibit such an insecurity and a fear of losing what they have now and an unwillingness to trust the process, mixed with the typical Boston conviction that somebody is screwing them over. I trust Ben and believe that if there a fair deal to be had with Jon Lester, he will find it. I also believe that, whether Lester stays or not, Cherington will keep the team in contention for the foreseeable future. If that involves a step backwards because a player like Lester ultimately wants that big payday and the Sox don’t want to be the team signing the checks, so be it. YMMV.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Jim D.[/SIZE]
According to Pete Abe in this morning's Globe: "Several teammates, angry at what they believed to be an insulting offer, leaked the offer on Saturday and Lester was left having to answer questions."
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
How does he define "bust" though? If they end up being a sunk cost at the end of the deal but were worth it for the first few years is that a bust?
To me this suggests that the Sox don't view Lester as the guy they want to build a rotation around for the next 5 years. At some point these contracts become the market rate as opposed to all of them being an overpay. They can't go into 2015 with Lackey, Buchholz, Felix, and two question marks. Then Lackey and possibly Buchholz could be gone after 2015. So at some point in the next two offseasons they're going to need to sign a pitcher, and it's going to cost a decent chunk of change.
So I think one of two things is going on here. Maybe they'd prefer to sign a Ubaldo type guy to a contract more along the lines of 4/60. Looking at the list of potential free agents I'm not really sure who that would be though. Alternatively, they're willing to sign a big contract with someone other than Lester. Maybe they'd rather throw money at Scherzer, Shields or Masterson.
The 4/70 offer was a joke and they know it. If they want to keep him they need to commit a significant amount of money, and if that's their plan they're wasting their window of opporunity to negotiate exclusively. I don't think they're stupid, so I think this means they may not really want to keep him.
JimD,
One of the good things about not living in Boston is not being subject to the "Whiner Line" and Boston sports talk radio in general. Maybe the "fans" there are as down on the Sox brass as you say.
On this board, I think the discussion is pretty rational, and I think it's so on this thread.
My main point, which I stand by, is that I don't think there is any way the Sox will go into 2015 with a rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, Doubront and two of the pitcherts in Pawtucket or Porland (Owens), with other pitchers from Pawtucket forming the starting depth. I think the Sox will pay someone a lot of money to pitch for them next year, and am surprised they didn't move to tie up Lester before the season.
The issue that I and a lot of others have is with the 4/$70M offer. Yes, to us it's a lot of money, but in the baseball landscape today, for someone of Lester's status, it's not even in the ballpark. Sure your first offer is not your final offer, but your first offer should be reasonable. We all know you don't pay stucker price for a car, but when the sticker price is $20,000, you don't offer $11,000 either.
One of the good things about not living in Boston is not being subject to the "Whiner Line" and Boston sports talk radio in general. Maybe the "fans" there are as down on the Sox brass as you say.
On this board, I think the discussion is pretty rational, and I think it's so on this thread.
My main point, which I stand by, is that I don't think there is any way the Sox will go into 2015 with a rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, Doubront and two of the pitcherts in Pawtucket or Porland (Owens), with other pitchers from Pawtucket forming the starting depth. I think the Sox will pay someone a lot of money to pitch for them next year, and am surprised they didn't move to tie up Lester before the season.
The issue that I and a lot of others have is with the 4/$70M offer. Yes, to us it's a lot of money, but in the baseball landscape today, for someone of Lester's status, it's not even in the ballpark. Sure your first offer is not your final offer, but your first offer should be reasonable. We all know you don't pay stucker price for a car, but when the sticker price is $20,000, you don't offer $11,000 either.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Those two deals were signed in 2011. How can you say they're fair comps for today's market?
glennhoffmania said:
Will the 4/$70 million offer really look like a joke if Lester has the same overall results as he did last year (winnng the World Series notwithstanding). 3.75 ERA, 3.90 xFIP/SIERA pitchers are not getting $70 million on the open market. Just ask Ervin Santana, Ubaldo Jimenez, Ricky Nolasco, etc. With the exception of Gomes, it's not the MO of the current front office to sign players whose value is currently high and will likely only get lower as the contract goes on. They prefer to sign people coming off down years who could be expected to rebound.
There's a few different routes that the Red Sox could take to replace Lester. Just for shits and giggles, let's pretend Ruben Amaro Jr. has a moment of clarity and trades Cliff Lee. We have the financial flexibility to take on that contract. And if we were to take on Lee's entire salary, he probably wouldn't cost much in prospects. Maybe we give them a couple Betts or Margot types and Lee becomes our next Curt Schilling.
We could always dip in to free agency, but it doesn't seem like our style to give up a draft pick and sign a starter to a large contract. We're probably more likely to make an opportunistic signing of a pitcher coming off a down year. Maybe someone like Masterson, Ubaldo Jimenez, Josh Johnson, etc.
And the last and least likely option would be to fill the rotation spot with a prospect. If Webster ever improves his command, he could be a #2/#3 starter. Matt Barnes is still promising, he might be ready to contribute down the stretch this year. And Owens is getting closer.
Hoplite said:
It was a joke because they knew there was no way he'd accept anything close to it. Whether the FO is right or Lester is right is another question. We're basically saying the same thing I think. The FO doesn't view Lester as a guy worth committing nine figures to. That's fine. They either view him as a Garza type guy and would give a comparable contract, or they'd prefer someone else to whom they'd be willing to commit over 100m.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Well I certainly don't think it's a given that Scherzer is better than Lester, and he was just offered 6/144. If I'm Lester and I see what Detroit offered, and then the Sox offer half of that, I'd say no in two seconds.
I think people on this board and in this thread in particular, respect and within our limits understand (there's a lot inside stuff we do not know) what ownership/mgmt has done for this team. And I think we respect their intelligence, I also think we respect our own collective wisdom, ie. we too can interpret and evaluate available data. And to many (not all) the 4/70 was well below what recent comps (Hamels, Greinke, Scherzer offer---and to be clear Lester does not deserve Verlander or Kershaw $$$, but these other pitchers are legit comps, both on age, and performance) seemed to indicate a quality LH starter with Lester's resume might attract as a FA. To me Lester FA value (price to the highest bidder) is 6/140-150. (AAV ~$24) But it could be more. Now lets assign the hometown discount. Maybe that equates to 5 years at $20-22 AAV, with a 6th year based on attainable goals. But it is so far above a 4/70 as to make the 4/70 a bad joke. And if Pete Abe is to be believed the joke was not appreciated in the clubhouse.
So I too wondered if the Sox really wanted to sign the guy, or they just wanted to see how much of a discount Lester would entertain.
Good thing the Sox teach plate discipline, patience, and to lay-off low and away pitches.
Who knows, Lester may get himself a walk.
So I too wondered if the Sox really wanted to sign the guy, or they just wanted to see how much of a discount Lester would entertain.
Good thing the Sox teach plate discipline, patience, and to lay-off low and away pitches.
Who knows, Lester may get himself a walk.
glennhoffmania said:
Do you think Lester will still be asking for significantly more than 4/$70 million if he has another season with an ERA in the 3.75-4.00 range and doesn't win a World Series? I don't see the offer as a joke because I think there's a very good chance that Lester's asking price will go down if he continues to pitch the way he has the last three years.
Hoplite said:
Let's flip it around. If Lester finishes with an ERA in the high 3s in the ALE, and the Sox don't extend him, would you be surprised if NY, Detroit (assuming they don't keep Scherzer), Seattle or Texas sign him for more than $100m?
I think the Sox look at the Verlander-level deals as unduly risky. I think they also see Lester as a cut below the top half dozen pitchers in the game, but a step above Garza et al.
IMO, the only thing that makes this 4/$70 offer look bad is the fact that the same team committed more to John Lackey 4 years ago. I can see how that would create an awkward, intrasquad dynamic and lead to some backlash from the players. But this offer is for more per year, and it's silly to compare an opening offer to a final deal.
Let's see where this goes. I think the team wants to extend Lester but to a second-tier deal in the $18-20M per year range rather than $22-25M.
IMO, the only thing that makes this 4/$70 offer look bad is the fact that the same team committed more to John Lackey 4 years ago. I can see how that would create an awkward, intrasquad dynamic and lead to some backlash from the players. But this offer is for more per year, and it's silly to compare an opening offer to a final deal.
Let's see where this goes. I think the team wants to extend Lester but to a second-tier deal in the $18-20M per year range rather than $22-25M.
NY or Texas certainly could. Detroit and Seattle seem pretty stretched to me (and, like us, the Mariners have some good young cheap pitching to develop).
I think the Sox will probably need to get to 9 figures, but much beyond, they can move on. Lester will likely need to take an actual hometown discount to resign, not just a "discount" from what the very top (and mostly better) pitchers are getting.
I think the Sox will probably need to get to 9 figures, but much beyond, they can move on. Lester will likely need to take an actual hometown discount to resign, not just a "discount" from what the very top (and mostly better) pitchers are getting.
glennhoffmania said:
I wouldn't be all that surprised. I think there are always going to be teams that overrate win-loss records and think because he posted a 3.75 ERA in Fenway Park, that he'll post a 3.50 ERA or lower in a neutral environment, despite the fact that stats like xFIP and SIERA (park and league adjusted) suggest that he actually outpitched his peripherals. Over the last three years, Lester's DIP's and velocity have been in pretty steady decline. Unless people think he's going to reverse that trend and go back to the pitcher he was more than three years ago, he's not comparable performance-wise to guys like Verlander, Greinke, Scherzer, Hamels, etc. at the time that they signed their extensions. Verlander's WAR the three previous years to his extension was double Lester's WAR the last three years. And with the exception of Verlander, Lester would also be older than any of them at the time that they signed their extensions. If he wants to get paid like one of those pitchers, he needs to perform like them. In reality, he's been much more similar performance-wise to guys like Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana and Ubaldo Jimenez and he's saying that he's willing to take a discount. So an offer of 4 years/$70 million seems perfectly reasonable, even if there's very little chance that he'll take it. We can't and shouldn't try to match every inflated offer that the Phillies or Dodgers or Yankees, or whoever else makes.
Why do people keep bringing up Verlander and Greinke? I don't think anyone has claimed that Lester should get a deal like that. But can we at least agree that there is a big difference, and a lot of wiggle room, between 6/150 and 4/70?
Minneapolis Millers said:
Bullshit.
From this morning's Seattle Times:
Valuation of Mariners continues to skyrocket while team’s payroll remains steady
I wonder is the Sox would ideally like to see a higher AAV, shorter-term, deal (a la Vic, Nap, Gomes), with the hopes that Lester is willing to get one more big contract in 3 or 4 years. Maybe they offer 3/$75 or 4/$96.glennhoffmania said:
Then they could also put longer-term, lower AAV deals on the table as well: 5/$105; 6/$114, etc.
Isn't Wainwright the obvious comp? Age 31 at the time of the extension, coming off a bounce-back year (from TJ surgery in his case). Of course, he's been a much more consistent pitcher aside from his missed 2011 due to the injury. Wainwright's 6.0 WAR in 2012 also made a much better case for an extension, especially since it showed he was right back to his previous peak performance. Lester is a lot further removed from his best years..
You mean the guy who Lester bested twice last October?JimD said:
I was just (literally) looking at basic stats of a dozen Aces, and coincidentally both Lester and Wainright are 101-58 lifetime (.635% ) Lester averages 34 starts a year 213 IP, Wainright 29 starts 207 IP. The big differentiator ERA Lester at 3.74 Wainright 3.11.
While Kershaw, Price, and Verlander stand-out, Lester comps pretty well with the best in the game.
When you adjust that ERA for the difference between the NL Central and AL East, I'd agree that Wainwright is a very good place to start.bankshot1 said:
What confuses me is not so much the 4/70 offer, but the fact that's the best the Sox offered after several weeks of discussions. That would seem to me to be an opening bid, not the best you can do in one of the prime negotiating windows of the year.
I was messing around with some numbers and found that Lester compiled 27.5 WAR between his age 24-29 seasons (43rd best among pitchers since the live ball era). I think looked up every live ball era pitcher who compiled between 25 and 30 WAR in their age 24-29 seasons and has had a chance to complete their age 35 season. I threw out Ben Sheets because he had significant injury issues before his age 29 season. That came out to a nice, tidy 30 pitchers with a total WAR of 825.1 and an average WAR of 27.503. I then looked up how they produced at ages 31-35 and the same 30 pitchers had a total WAR of 348.8 (11.626 each). Multiply that 11.626 by a standard $6 million per WAR and you get a predicted value of $69.756 million for Lester in his age 31-35 seasons. Yet, we're offering to pay him that much in four seasons, so that would certainly compensate for any WAR value inflation.
I don't have any problem with the 4/70 offer, given that we have no context for it. Frankly, it's probably close to what Lester is "worth," and if you factor in that he said he would take a discount, that would be about where I might end up to if I were the Red Sox. I love Lester, but that's an emotional reaction, and looking just at his numbers I think that anywhere from 4/80-6/100 would be reasonable on the open market. Minus a bit for this discount, and there you are.
Also, this is just one number that was leaked, we have no idea what else was in play, like more years for lower dollars, or the opposite. It's why the owners would rather keep these leaks from happening, because people will react and draw conclusions from imperfect information.
Also, this is just one number that was leaked, we have no idea what else was in play, like more years for lower dollars, or the opposite. It's why the owners would rather keep these leaks from happening, because people will react and draw conclusions from imperfect information.
- Status