Rasputin said:Am I the only one that thinks a deal is done over the break?
Yes.
No, if Lucchino thinks a 4-year/$76 million offer at that point will close the deal.
Time to play the Blues.
Rasputin said:Am I the only one that thinks a deal is done over the break?
They traded Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford for prospects and filler, did not sign any big ticket free agents, and kept their payroll well above 10-15.ShaneTrot said:Did anyone listen to Olney and Law discuss this on the ESPN baseball today podcast? One of the things they said about Lester's situation is the Sox have young, cheap and good players all up and down the roster and not one of these guys is expensive yet. If they don't sign Lester (or his replacement) for big money, are they going to be become a 10-15 place team in payroll?
Yeah, because they had to fill in half the roster with free agents. If they don't sign Lester or a FA replacement, they'll have players making chump change at third, short, center, catcher, two rotation spots, and probably at least one bullpen slot.Eddie Jurak said:They traded Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford for prospects and filler, did not sign any big ticket free agents, and kept their payroll well above 10-15.
Rasputin said:Am I the only one that thinks a deal is done over the break?
Darnell's Son said:
Absent a deal for Stanton or some other salary eater, I don't see how the team can allow Lester to sniff free agency.
ShaneTrot said:If they don't sign Lester (or his replacement) for big money, are they going to be become a 10-15 place team in payroll?
snowmanny said:
Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's point of view. There are a bunch in the under 15-19 Million camp, and a couple in the very high range (including me), but the general consensus seems to be that a signing at 5/100 or perhaps slightly above would make most of the board happy and is generally expected.
I agree to a certain extent but if the Sox are going to start to act like they are the Kansas City Royals and still be the most expensive ticket in the game, I will be pissed.You have to pay for the wins in some way, either by having exceptional cheap talent or good, expensive vets. Obviously, the best teams are a blending of both. I think the 2007 team was a perfect example, some high-priced talent and good young players like Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Papelbon.Savin Hillbilly said:
I don't think it's really up to them at this point.
Maybe for a couple of years. Remember, if these kids pan out, we'll need to lock them up for decent money, and if they don't, we'll need to go get somebody who will.
I just hope to god Cherington isn't thinking the way some people around here clearly are, "OMG! We've only got $100M committed for next year! Quick, find somebody to spend some money on!" Money doesn't win championships. Good acquisitions win championships. Money broadens the range of possible good acquisitions, but you don't spend the money just to spend the money.
ShaneTrot said:I agree to a certain extent but if the Sox are going to start to act like they are the Kansas City Royals and still be the most expensive ticket in the game, I will be pissed.You have to pay for the wins in some way, either by having exceptional cheap talent or good, expensive vets. Obviously, the best teams are a blending of both. I think the 2007 team was a perfect example, some high-priced talent and good young players like Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Papelbon.
Plympton91 said:
Maybe they make a run at Max Scherzer if they are spurned by Lester. Scherzer is similar age but has a lot less mileage on his arm.
ShaneTrot said:Did anyone listen to Olney and Law discuss this on the ESPN baseball today podcast? One of the things they said about Lester's situation is the Sox have young, cheap and good players all up and down the roster and not one of these guys is expensive yet. If they don't sign Lester (or his replacement) for big money, are they going to be become a 10-15 place team in payroll?
Savin Hillbilly said:
Remember, if these kids pan out, we'll need to lock them up for decent money, and if they don't, we'll need to go get somebody who will.
I just hope to god Cherington isn't thinking the way some people around here clearly are, "OMG! We've only got $100M committed for next year! Quick, find somebody to spend some money on!" Money doesn't win championships. Good acquisitions win championships. Money broadens the range of possible good acquisitions, but you don't spend the money just to spend the money.
Rovin Romine said:
the difference between an excellent player at a premium price and a merely good player at a premium price.
soxhop411 said:Mlbtraderumors explains
by MARK POLISHUK | MAY 5, 2014
The recent struggles of Yankees starters C.C. Sabathia (age 33) and Hiroki Kuroda (age 39) weigh on the minds of Red Sox management in regards to a possible Jon Lester extension, Peter Gammons tweets. While the Sox are surely interested in keeping Lester in the fold through 2018, anything beyond that could be problematic given the history of guaranteeing big money to aging pitchers. Lester would be 35 on Opening Day 2019, which could be why Boston’s most recent offer to the southpaw was a four-year extension.
Plympton91 said:
Can you tell difference ex ante?
soxhop411 said:“@pgammo: Bosox ownership sees Sabathia/Kuroda lose 4 on homestand(19.1 IP, 36 H, 18 ER) in Lester scope, but think 2015--18 w/out him...not good”
https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/463269411793936384
glennhoffmania said:
This is pretty idiotic on multiple levels. Comparing 3 totally different pitchers, using a small sample, ignoring the value he could provide in the first 4 years, to name a few.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I disagree with most of this.
Papelbon left because you don't invest that much in years or dollars in a reliever. Ellsbury left because they learned their lesson that that type of player isn't worth $23M per year over any term. Clay will leave because you don't commit to a SP that has never given you more than 189 IP.
Where they rank on a list of highest paid player is irrelevant and I don't think they really care about it. They want value for their dollar and when the right player comes along, they will spend it. They can no longer rely on their financial advantage to help in the draft or international market. So if they are relying on drafting and developing better than every other team and content with that being their primary advantage, then they are either being extremely arrogant or extremely foolhardy.
soxhop411 said:“@pgammo: Bosox ownership sees Sabathia/Kuroda lose 4 on homestand(19.1 IP, 36 H, 18 ER) in Lester scope, but think 2015--18 w/out him...not good”
https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/463269411793936384
I'm wondering if it's more this: they see the struggles of those guys and it makes them more certain that NY will go after Lester.curly2 said:I think the "2015-18 w/out him...not good" addresses the value he could provide in the first four years.
The Cards are a very well-run franchise, but I would argue the bar is lower for St. Louis. Being 10th in MLB is usually the most spending in their division, or close. I mean, the Blue Jays spent more than they did last year.kieckeredinthehead said:
The only thing I take from that is the Yankees are going to need another starting pitcher next year.
St. Louis was 11th in payroll last year. They have an organization that I assume most people on this board would be thrilled to replicate.
Another difference--NYY is not in their division, nor is TB.curly2 said:One huge difference is the Cardinals have an ace in Wainwright tied up through 2018 and a possible young ace in Wacha. The Sox have a lot of good young pitching prospects but I don't think any has Wacha's ceiling.
e.e. gammings:soxhop411 said:“@pgammo: Bosox ownership sees Sabathia/Kuroda lose 4 on homestand(19.1 IP, 36 H, 18 ER) in Lester scope, but think 2015--18 w/out him...not good”
https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/463269411793936384
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I disagree with you making a blanket statement like "you don't give 7 year contracts to players in their 30s".
* * * *
You very well may be right, but it's nothing but conjecture to assume they have made an organizational mandate to avoid said deals.
I think they can. How many in-house FA's have the Sox real reason to regret passing on? Damon? Lowe?Plympton91 said:Can you tell difference ex ante?
Can the Red Sox?
Rovin Romine said:I think they can. How many in-house FA's have the Sox real reason to regret passing on? Damon? Lowe?
Toe Nash said:The Cards are a very well-run franchise, but I would argue the bar is lower for St. Louis. Being 10th in MLB is usually the most spending in their division, or close. I mean, the Blue Jays spent more than they did last year.
Last year St Louis won 97 games; they were excellent. But the years before that: 88, 90, 86, 91, 86, 78, 83. They got 4 playoff appearances out of those last 7 years but if you adjust for tougher competition that looks like a lot of just missing in the AL. With the new playoff system are we happy with a coin flip and then hoping to go on a run or do we want to win the division?
snowmanny said:Here are the suggested offers that I found in this thread: 15M/year(FanSinceBoggs); 5/100 "is the floor" (bombdiggz); 16.5Mx5-6 yrs (Papi's Fan); 5/100-110 but that's probably not enough (Ed Hillel); 6/100 (Maufman); 6/120 (jimbobim); FO will offer 16-18Mx4-5 yrs (C4CRVT, who seems to have been correct); "his market starts at 6/120-130"; 5-6 years @20-25M (bankshot); 4/80 "is a good starting point" (Stanley Steamer); under 6/120 (Toe Nash); 5/100 (Beantownldah); 6/120 (ivanvamp); 5/110 (Morgan's Magic Snowplow); 5/90, later amended to "between 5/100 and 6/150" (koufax37); 5/100-6/120 (keninten); 6/111 (Drek717); "Near Scherzer's"rejected offer of 6/144 (me, in a fit of generosity with other people's money); 5/90 (radsoxfan); 5/90 or 6/105 or 6/112 (Plympton91);5/90 in one post, would "consider" 5/120 in another (The Boomer); 6/125 (FredCDobbs) 5/90-100 (Savin Hillbilly); 5/100 (Minneapolis Millers); 17-18AAV (Yaz$Ever); 5/100 (DennyDoyle'sBall; 5/100 (JoshV02); 5/80 (Hoplite); worth 5/100, maybe takes 5/80 (Sampo Gida); 5/100 (donut ogre); 6/110 (Apisth); 5/110 (pdub) 16-17AAV (benhogan); 5/85 is homedownt discount and 5/110 is FA value (gammoseditor); 5/100 pokey_reese; 5/100 (nvalvo); 6 years, seems to suggest 6/120 (glenhoffmania); 5/110 (Doctor G); 5/100 (Rudy Pemberton).
Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's point of view. There are a bunch in the under 15-19 Million camp, and a couple in the very high range (including me), but the general consensus seems to be that a signing at 5/100 or perhaps slightly above would make most of the board happy and is generally expected.
Plympton91 said:I'm still thinking about this comparison of Lester to Sabathia and Kuroda.
Why aren't Glavine and Jamie Moyer comps? Would they feel more inclined to extend Lester if he was successful by living on the edge of the zone with offspeed pitches? Isn't Andy Pettitte universally considered a very close comp for Lester? He showed almost no deterioration through his mid-30s; although, perhaps the Red Sox think he had more consistent "help" than he copped too? Kenny Rogers, after escaping his disaster in pinstripes at age 31-32, was successful and durable from age 33 through his age 41 season except for a single season blip at age 36. David Wells showed nothing more than typical variation in his performance from age 30 to 42.
I'm sure they've got Sabermetricians doing comprehensive studies, and PECOTA projections are probably the best purely statistical tool for an unbiased though imperfect assessment, but to focus on Sabathia and Kuroda seems absurd. That's just someone in the front office putting out an excuse to Gammons.
Apisith said:Going by his best comparisons on baseball reference, assuming a 6 year deal covering ages 31-36 seasons:
Millwood: 9.5bWAR, 97 ERA+
Pettitte: 18.5bWAR, 115 ERA+
Beckett: 6.5bWAR with the rest of this season and next season to go, 107 ERA+
Mulder: finished by 28
Lackey: 3.5bWAR with the rest of this season and next season to go, 93 ERA+
It just doesn't look good for Lester. The best case scenario is Halladay and even he was done by his age 35 season, and by done I mean he was completely finished, and that was pitching in the NL, too.
The Pettitte scenario makes Lester deserving of around $18m/year for 6 years (assuming $5.5m/win with 5% inflation) but that's assuming he doesn't get injured at all. The more you look at it, the more it's obvious why we're focused on not going more than 5 years. I initially posted that I'd be happy with 6/$110m - which is the Pettitte scenario - but I don't think I'd be willing to go more than 5/$92m now. If he reaches free agency, will someone give him more than that? Almost assuredly, but that doesn't mean that we should.
He's already shown how bad he is when he 'loses it' and that was in his age 28 season. He's not worth the risk of a long term deal. We got his best years. Let someone else get the worst years.
There'll be older SPs out there who we can try the Napoli/Victorino route, guys like Shields and even Peavy if he has a good season with us. It's not Lester or kids or scrubs. There'll be options out there.
In 2016, there'll be other pitchers available, guys like Cueto, Chen, Gallardo, Kazmir, Latos, Porcello, Samardzija and whoever breaks out this year and next.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:So, let's say the market for Lester is something like 6/132. Might the Red Sox be in a unique position to front-load a contract like that without serious implications for the next couple of years and without mortgaging the future? Like 30/30/15/15/15/15? Yes, $30 million for the next two years for Lester is an overpay. But it's money that doesn't appear needed elsewhere at the moment and they have it. And, in years 3 and 4, he likely will be underpaid. All I'm really getting at is there is a fairly unique spending opportunity here for the Red Sox given the unusual confluence of Lackey's contract and so much cost control at key, expensive positions. I really can't think of anything better to do with it than on known, proven, top of the rotation starting pitching.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I wouldn't have any problem with the Red Sox spending $30 million in each of the next two years for a top of the rotation starter. They have it to spend in the next two years, can do so without luxury tax implications, and it's definitely a need unless we're all comfortable watching rookies and Doubront sixty percent of time, or more if Clay can't go every five days. ...
glennhoffmania said:
The AAV doesn't change so the luxury tax implications don't change.
Apisith said:We would have to give prospects for Lee. He's earning his dough, a 5+ win pitcher year-in year-out isn't going to be given away for just cash, even if Amaro ends up deciding to want to cut payroll; there'll be other teams who can afford his contract and are willing to throw in prospects.
Plympton91 said:Why aren't Glavine and Jamie Moyer comps?
smastroyin said:It's interesting you guys mention Lee as an alternative to paying Lester.
....