Impact of the sum total of Ben's off season moves regarding 2013 veterans

[Minneapolis Millers]

I appreciate the thread's basic question, and my answer is no.  They extended Pedey last year, Ortiz this year.  Those two are the clearest veteran leaders on the team.  They reupped with Napoli.  They have paid to bring in veterans even for platoon and back-up positions over the past 2 years (Gomes, Ross).  They offered Salty more per year than the Marlins gave him, iirc.  Drew's a professional, good glove guy and all that, but he was here for one year and didn't hit worth a damn in the playoffs, while his young replacement's talent and professional are bleedingly obvious to everyone, including his teammates.  No one's moping around because Drew wasn't resigned.
 
I'm sure the team feels that losing Ellsbury, to a rival no less, hurts.  I'm also sure they'd like to see staff ace Lester extended.  But Lester's still on the team, and the players know that big contracts can take time to hammer out. 
 
The weather sucks.  They've had injuries.  They've had some bad luck.  They've had little good luck.  So they're 6-9.  I don't sense a lot of panic or exasperation from the players.  So I don't think it's frustration that's leading to poor results.
 
Let's see where they're at once guys get healthy and the calendar flips to May...  I'm betting Cafardo will need a new angle by that time.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Just want to point out that even last year, Lester didn't give us 3.50 ERA pitching. He had a fine year, and he's still, on a good day, a very good pitcher, but "bona-fide ace" is a bit of a stretch even now--and it will likely become more of a stretch over a five- or six-year contract. Not saying that 4/$70, if that was their best offer, was anything close to realistic, just pointing out that people are responding to his great postseason run and early 2014 success by talking about him as if he were David Price or Cliff Lee. He's good, but not quite that good.

No, he gave us a 3.45 ERA.

 

[nvalvo]

You're right - the Red Sox don't have to spend the money on player salaries.  Just like I don't have to spend my money on the most expensive tickets in all of baseball.  The Sox have dropped to #4 in total payroll, soon to be #5.  I am all for being smart with our money and I never want to revisit the days of Crawford, Beckett and Gonzalez.  And I am all for reallocating some of our veteran player salaries into our farm system.  That is an absolute must in the post steroid era.  But I also want to have a bona-fide ace on our staff that can consistently give you 200 innings a year of 3.50 era pitching - from the left side no less.  And he just so happens to be a home-grown, feel good story and a guy who wants to stay here for less than market value.  When you have a narrow window to sign a guy like that and the best you come up with is apparently 4/$70  - then yes - I'd say that I'm a bit concerned the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction.

 
It's worth noting that the bolded isn't as easy to do as it might have been a few years ago, with hard caps on draft spending and international signings. 
 
Lester has met the standard you're suggesting less than half the time since becoming a full-time player. He hasn't done that "consistently" in several years (edit: in the sense that he's had months-long stretches of worse performance). I'm in favor of an extension, even an expensive one, but this isn't the guarantee you're suggesting. 
 
I'm not at all sure that Lester will be worth $100m over the next five or six years, and as I understand the Sox' roster over that span, it looks like we can afford to give that much to only two or three players in the next few years. But it's not like we have the option of signing Clayton Kershaw to the same deal. Lester doesn't seem like a meaningfully worse bet than the other options. I think I'd do it. 

 

[Bone Chips]

If the standard is a staff ace who gives you a 3.50 era and 200 innings a year, Lester has done that basically every year but one since becoming a full time starter. I think we feel way too confident in our ability to hit the lotto like we did last year.

 

[Stitch01]

Huh?  He hasn't hit those numbers since 2010.
 
I could be wrong and apologies if Im putting words in someones mouth, but (paraphrasing) I also don't think Theo is asking whether losing the production of the departed players makes the team better or worse or whether they were good moves/bad moves.  Rather is asking whether the current team's performance is worse (or, less good) than the sum of its parts compared to last years team and/or whether there will be repercussions in future negotiations with the team as a result of Cherington's largely "value-based" approach to the offseason (i.e. Bradley and Bogaerts performance relative to Ellsbury and Drew's contributions last year or whether it was a good baseball move to sign AJP for one year rather than Salty for 3 aren't really relevant to the question)

 

[Bone Chips]

You're right. Last year he was 3.75. Had a bad stretch mid-season. But 3.75 sure ain't bad, he sure performed like an ace in the postseason.

 

[tims4wins]

You're right. Last year he was 3.75. Had a bad stretch mid-season. But 3.75 sure ain't bad, he sure performed like an ace in the postseason.

 
In 2000 it was pretty good. Last year it was 22nd among qualified AL starters. In other words, every team plus half the other teams had a better #1 than him by ERA.
 
Edit: Lester hasn't been in the top 10 in the AL in ERA since 2010.

 

[snowmanny]

You're right. Last year he was 3.75. Had a bad stretch mid-season. But 3.75 sure ain't bad, he sure performed like an ace in the postseason.

I said he was 3.45 because I was counting all starts, including post-season.  Edit: I'm not sure what the advantage is in parsing out regular season numbers.

 

[Plympton91]

Drew's and Ellsbury's replacements have the 2nd- and 3rd-best on-base percentages on the team at .391 and .354, respectively. Those two, at the moment, are not the problem.

If Drew and Ellsbury were here, then those would be Will Middlebrooks and Shane Victorino's replacements. So what is Ryan Rayburn's OBP?

 

[Plympton91]

I think people are missing the fact that the Sox want to call up prospects both this year and next.  That means short term contracts in some cases to hold the fort while the prospects mature (or if they don't, to bridge the gap until the next offseason/FA class). 
 
Yet not all FA's are infinitely flexible.  The reason they got AJP on a one year deal was likely because he was the best catcher they could get on a one year deal (apart from tendering a 1yr 14mil QO for Salty that he may not have taken anyway).  
 
Drew wasn't *really* needed as a bridge and obviously didn't accept a one year offer anyway.  
 
I suspect the front office is "fair balling" (instead of lowballing) Lester in part because the farm is stocked with young pitching.  There's no need to break the bank on Lester just yet.  
 
There's not a lot of mystery here.  The Sox haven't said so, but they're probably content to field a competitive team this year that quickly bridges into the younger players.  

It always amazes me that a site dedicated to one of the greatest AAAA players in history can talk about prospects as if they're sure things. If the Red Sox current stock of minor league pitching prospects, two of whom failed miserably in the major leagues last seasion due to lack of command that is often chronic, reaches the lofty status of Suppan/Rose/Pavano or Wilson / Pulsipher / Isringhausen they will have beaten the odds. Pretending that any of the 6 is going to be as good as Lester over the next 6 years, let alone 2 or 3 of them, is wish casting not prudent management. If the best offer the Sox made was 4/$70 then they are not trying to sign him at all, better to have not even bothered talking. But even worse it suggests that they've drunk their own cool aid again, and it was that attitude about their defensive metrics that led to the ridiculously misguided Crawford signing and the penny wise, pound foolish signings of Cameron and Jenks.

 

[mabrowndog]

Lester is also (a) a lefty pitching half his games at Fenway, and (b) a lefty pitching in the AL East.
 
Basing any evaluation of Lester on straight unadjusted ERA is ill-advised.

 

[TheoShmeo]

There's a lot of overreaction going on over the frustrations of a slow start, especially when juxtaposed with what happened in 2013 and with the fact that Dreamboat is off to a great start with the Yankees who are now leading the AL East. The overreactions are a surprise to no one -- except those doing the overreacting, and much of it is media-driven. They spawn an obsession to over-analyze things and make assumptions and projections based on a ridiculously small data set. As for Cafardo, others have spoken succinctly on why nothing he says or writes should ever be taken seriously or used as a comparative benchmark.

I assume that overreaction you are referring to includes this thread, Mark.
 
So even asking a question along these lines is an overreaction?
 
I don't see why.  The question was a question.  It was not a conclusion.
 
In short, does allowing three every day veterans of a championship team to go and not getting the Lester deal done impact the remaining veterans and the team in general?  Or is it irrelevant?
 
Now you can say "it's clearly irrelevant."  That's fine.  And it seems right.  But how even asking the question equals overreaction is not clear to me.
 
I will readily admit to frustration and angst at the slow start and the relatively poor hitting and less than stellar fielding.  But even if the Sox were winning more, I would have questions about how Ben's readiness to part with his up the middle guys and discliplined approach with Lester would play.  I had this question before the season started, particualry when Ortiz remained unsigned.  The play in the first 15 games puts a finer point on it, tis true.  But this is not just a reaction to the record.           

 

[wolfe_boston]

We don't know if Lester is going to be as good as Lester over the next 6 years, either, and it will be very expensive to find out.

By the way, has Lester ever had TMJ surgery?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

No, he gave us a 3.45 ERA.

 
Well, 3.47 to be exact (at least that's the figure Excel is giving me).
 
Yeah, I think it's entirely legit when it comes to rate stats to include the postseason--I mean, it's not like those games are less important. So OK, he had a 3.47, which even in the post-steroid era is still damn good, especially for a lefthander who pitches half his games in Fenway. And he compiled that 3.47 in almost 250 innings all told. But it still would have made him only 17th among qualifying AL pitchers. Maybe that's a solid #1 if you factor in Fenway. But he's really not that close to a top-10 pitcher in the AL by any rate-stat type measure. By fWAR he was #11 in the league, and that's probably the best lens to view him through: when he's right, he pitches an elite number of innings at a not-quite-elite level, and that adds up to a borderline-elite pitcher.
 
In short: he's not quite an ace, but he's a world-class horse.
 
Speaking of horses and their faces, perhaps the best comp in pure value/career terms so far (though not in repertoire or style) is Andy Pettitte. After their age-29 seasons, Pettite and Lester had, respectively,
 
1449 and 1376 innings;
a 116 and 117 ERA+;
30.1 and 29.3 fWAR;
28.7 and 28.0 rWAR.
 
If the parallel holds through the age 30-36 seasons, then for God's sake sign Lester up now, and pay the man.

 

[Plympton91]

We don't know if Lester is going to be as good as Lester over the next 6 years, either, and it will be very expensive to find out.

By the way, has Lester ever had TMJ surgery?

I was referring to the median projection for Lester over the next 6 years, not Lester to date. It's not a given that any of the Red Sox top 6 high level pitching prospects will ever start 30 games in the majors; in fact, I'd take the "over" only for Workman and Owens. Even then, I'd bet Workman is more valuable as an ace reliever than back of the rotation starter.

 

[wolfe_boston]

Whoops. And TJ surgery, too.

 

[Toe Nash]

It always amazes me that a site dedicated to one of the greatest AAAA players in history can talk about prospects as if they're sure things. If the Red Sox current stock of minor league pitching prospects, two of whom failed miserably in the major leagues last seasion due to lack of command that is often chronic, reaches the lofty status of Suppan/Rose/Pavano or Wilson / Pulsipher / Isringhausen they will have beaten the odds. Pretending that any of the 6 is going to be as good as Lester over the next 6 years, let alone 2 or 3 of them, is wish casting not prudent management. If the best offer the Sox made was 4/$70 then they are not trying to sign him at all, better to have not even bothered talking. But even worse it suggests that they've drunk their own cool aid again, and it was that attitude about their defensive metrics that led to the ridiculously misguided Crawford signing and the penny wise, pound foolish signings of Cameron and Jenks.

If I had a dollar for every time Wilson / Pulsipher / Izzy were mentioned...
 
First, it's not just a "can't miss" trio. The Sox have 5 different starters who have been mentioned in top 100 lists (not all in the same list, so let's call them all top 150 prospects). And then they have Ranaudo, de la Rosa, and Workman (who I recall you speaking highly of in another thread). 
 
Second, we know more about young pitching than teams did in the mid-90s. Specifically, how to keep them healthy. There are of course a lot of injuries still, but Pulsipher pitched 200+ innings in AA at age 20. He then pitched 216 innings between AAA and the majors at age 21. He then missed his entire age 22 season and was never the same. Wilson pitched 186 innings at age 22. Isringhausen pitched 221 at age 22. They both had major injury problems too. None of the Sox prospects have had those kinds of workloads. They have clear innings limits and are shut down at the first signs of injury.
 
Rehab has gotten a lot better too -- maybe if Pulsipher was pitching now he'd have had the same injury, but he would maybe have rehabbed better too (he also fought depression, which I'd like to think we are better about recognizing and treating now).
 
I am actually in agreement that the Lester offer was very low, but I still think an agreement gets done, and bringing up Generation K as if the 8+ capable arms in the minors are all destined to fail is ignoring how far we've come in pitcher usage. No one has forgotten them because people always bring them up to make sure we don't get too excited about prospects. But the Sox have actually a decent record developing starters, at least this millennium, and they have a lot of bullets this time. 
 
Not to mention, if the Sox don't sign Lester, they can likely trade a couple of their pitching prospects for a solid starter. Then they won't have to worry about them failing.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I don't see why.  The question was a question.  It was not a conclusion.
 
In short, does allowing three every day veterans of a championship team to go and not getting the Lester deal done impact the remaining veterans and the team in general?  Or is it irrelevant?
 
Now you can say "it's clearly irrelevant."  That's fine.  And it seems right.  But how even asking the question equals overreaction is not clear to me.

 
I posted in the Lester thread that the Sox have apparently developed an organizational philosophy of eschewing long-term, top tier free agents, in favor of a, as someone else put it, Belichekian approach to building a team.
 
I think the larger question is to debate the merits of this philosophy.  While this approach is far more likely to avoid multiple dead years that the Sox seemed to be facing before the Punto trade came from heaven, but it also means that the Sox will be foregoing some of the best players in baseball.  And given the draft salary cap and the international signing rules, this approach will force the Sox to be demonstrably better at finding, drafting, and developing star players than other teams.  Is this possible?  Time I guess will tell.

 

[snowmanny]

 
I posted in the Lester thread that the Sox have apparently developed an organizational philosophy of eschewing long-term, top tier free agents, in favor of a, as someone else put it, Belichekian approach to building a team.
 
I think the larger question is to debate the merits of this philosophy.  While this approach is far more likely to avoid multiple dead years that the Sox seemed to be facing before the Punto trade came from heaven, but it also means that the Sox will be foregoing some of the best players in baseball.  And given the draft salary cap and the international signing rules, this approach will force the Sox to be demonstrably better at finding, drafting, and developing star players than other teams.  Is this possible?  Time I guess will tell.

 
This is an excellent point.  We hear frequently that the new philosophy of no big long-term contracts was a reaction to the failures they had with such contracts. Those contracts being Lackey, Crawford and Gonzalez.  Well, the Lackey contract, which was deemed disastrous after 2012, suddenly doesn't look all that bad. The Crawford contract was a mistake, but that may or may not have been driven by forces beyond baseball (they signed Crawford in the off-season after Tom Werner told Francona they needed players who would "win in a more exciting" fashion).  And the Gonzalez contract looks fine, so far, and was in fact so reasonable that the Dodgers were willing to absorb Crawford's contract and Beckett's contract in order to acquire it.  And the Red Sox did OK when they signed Pedro to the (at the time) most lucrative contract for a pitcher and when they signed Manny to the (at the time) second-biggest contract.  
 
Edit: I think all of "Ben's off season moves" were defensible and reasonable and seemed to follow the general plan that produced a championship, but that doesn't mean they were correct.  I wouldn't have favored the Sox offering Ellsbury what the Yankees did, either, but it is entirely possible that he earns every penny of that contract and we end up wishing they had given him the money.

 

[No Guru No Method]

 
This is an excellent point.  We hear frequently that the new philosophy of no big long-term contracts was a reaction to the failures they had with such contracts. Those contracts being Lackey, Crawford and Gonzalez.  Well, the Lackey contract, which was deemed disastrous after 2012, suddenly doesn't look all that bad. The Crawford contract was a mistake, but that may or may not have been driven by forces beyond baseball (they signed Crawford in the off-season after Tom Werner told Francona they needed players who would "win in a more exciting" fashion).  And the Gonzalez contract looks fine, so far, and was in fact so reasonable that the Dodgers were willing to absorb Crawford's contract and Beckett's contract in order to acquire it.  And the Red Sox did OK when they signed Pedro to the (at the time) most lucrative contract for a pitcher and when they signed Manny to the (at the time) second-biggest contract.  
 
Edit: I think all of "Ben's off season moves" were defensible and reasonable and seemed to follow the general plan that produced a championship, but that doesn't mean they were correct.  I wouldn't have favored the Sox offering Ellsbury what the Yankees did, either, but it is entirely possible that he earns every penny of that contract and we end up wishing they had given him the money.

 
Yes, it's entirely possible - but not very likely. Has AROD earned every penny ? Texiara ? Ryan Howard ? Pujols ? BJ Upton ? Prince Fielder, et al ?  I think that it is more likely that within 3 seasons Ellsbury will be seen as vastly overpaid.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Yes, it's entirely possible - but not very likely. Has AROD earned every penny ? Texiara ? Ryan Howard ? Pujols ? BJ Upton ? Prince Fielder, et al ?  I think that it is more likely that within 3 seasons Ellsbury will be seen as vastly overpaid.

Yes, but the contract needs to be evaluated at the end, not the middle. I think Manny's contract worked out great, but after three years he was put on waivers and nobody claimed him.  ARod's first contract turned out to be perfectly reasonable-three MVPs and a top 2 in seven years - even though the Rangers dumped him in the middle of that one.

 

[Reverend]

Yes, but the contract needs to be evaluated at the end, not the middle. I think Manny's contract worked out great, but after three years he was put on waivers and nobody claimed him.  ARod's first contract turned out to be perfectly reasonable-three MVPs and a top 2 in seven years - even though the Rangers dumped him in the middle of that one.

 
Manny being put on waivers is a bad comp because a big part of that was to get him to shut up about asking for a trade by demonstrating to him unequivocally that nobody else would even take his contract for free.

 

[wolfe_boston]

The Pedro and AG signings were not FA deals but were trades completed during the last year of previous contracts. The Pedro trade was fine as it involved Pavano and Tony Armas Jr but the Sox lost Anthony Rizzo in the AG deal. A highly regarded pitching prospect, Casey Kelly, was also included but he has been slow to recover from TJ surgery. The worst deal was for Josh Becket for who the Sox coughed up Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Becket helped the Sox win in 2007 but HR might have put them over the hump in 2008-9.

The above deals are examples of moving from cost controlled players to all-stars at a slight discount from market value. The Pedro deal was as good as it gets while Becket was a disaster when considering what was given up. AG is still a great player but his power and OBP numbers are way down from when he was in SD. His 2013 WAR was the same as Napoli's which is a level that hardly justifies eating the Crawford and Becket contracts. Napoli is a hell of a player but I would take Rizzo's upside anyday. Whether the Sox would won have last year with Rizzo is hard to say; he had a WAR of 2.8 , compared to Napoli's 4.2, but maybe they could have used the savings somewhere else.

I believe the above supports the strategy of holding on to propects. I believe the Becket deal might have cost them a couple of championships and Rizzo could end up being an All-Star level player.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Manny being put on waivers is a bad comp because a big part of that was to get him to shut up about asking for a trade by demonstrating to him unequivocally that nobody else would even take his contract for free.

Manny is a terrific comp because it demonstrates that a deal that every team thought was poisonous after three years turned out to be an underpayment after eight;  the comp was to the point that it is "likely that within three seasons Ellsbury will be seen as spectacularly overpaid."

 

[Reverend]

Manny is a terrific comp because it demonstrates that a deal that every team thought was poisonous after three years turned out to be an underpayment after eight;  the comp was to the point that it is "likely that within three seasons Ellsbury will be seen as spectacularly overpaid."

 
What I meant was that they didn't think at the time that he wouldn't be productive in the future, but rather that they wanted to shut him up. A more appropriate comp, then, would be to someone else whom people thought at one point would not longer be productive but who then surprised people by performing up to the level of his contract.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Manny is a terrific comp because it demonstrates that a deal that every team thought was poisonous after three years turned out to be an underpayment after eight;  the comp was to the point that it is "likely that within three seasons Ellsbury will be seen as spectacularly overpaid."

 
I disagree with you on this. His massively negative value in the field and on the bases made him worth far less than the 20 mil he was getting a year.

 

[snowmanny]

 
I disagree with you on this. His massively negative value in the field and on the bases made him worth far less than the 20 mil he was getting a year.

 
While I disagree with you given the totality of where the Red Sox were when he arrived and where they were when he left, you make a fair point.  I will only add that it is generally the end of these long-term contracts that everyone fears.  And when Manny's was done he got a raise.
 
Edit: And of course his massively negative value on the field was only made evident because David Ortiz' value on the field would have been, presumably, even more massively negative.

 

[Plympton91]

A better comp for Ellsbury than all those power hitters might be Derek Jeter. His 10 year contract worked out fine.

Who knows how many of the other power hitters were rewarded for stats put up on steroids and then stopped when they got their payday.

 

[mabrowndog]

I assume that overreaction you are referring to includes this thread, Mark.
 
So even asking a question along these lines is an overreaction?

 
Mike (TheoShmeo) and I have cleared the air via PM, as we've known each other for years, but I wanted to get some of the clarifications out in the open.
 
First, my post wasn't a response to the opening post in particular or even this thread in general. By late that afternoon I'd already subjected myself to the negative Chicken Little rants of Dennis & Callahan (I fell asleep watching the 14-inning game and awoke with the TV on and still tuned to NESN), Chris "Mad Dog" Russo (whose comparatively mild-mannered and far less inflammatory comments on MLBN about the Sox being in deep trouble were more geared toward negative assumptions drawn from small data samples), and Felger & Mazz (who combined the tacks of those earlier shows into a narrative designed to fuel reactive panic by their drive-time denizens). That's what drove my "a lot of overreaction going on" comment, even though such overreactions were wholly predictable.
 
It was also a response to the very mention of Cafardo. While he's probably a super-nice guy, I'm not exactly enamored with his reporting style, his regurgitation of groupthink storylines and information culled from the pool of beat writers in other cities, or his continued inability to comprehend (or outright refusal to attempt to understand) even some of the simplest newer metrics and their relevance to player valuation, roster/lineup construction, and historical comparisons. However, TS is correct that it isn't necessarily wrong to agree with something Cafardo writes. I've certainly done so myself at various times, going all the way back to his days at the Brockton Enterprise and Quincy Patriot-Ledger, although I've felt really dirty about it afterwards.
 
I also used the "nothing to see here" line, which in retrospect was poor word choice even if it fit my response literally. That line, which I admittedly use too often on this board, carries a dismissive and sarcastic tone and conveys a desire to stifle debate, which wasn't my intent. As TS notes, new threads are encouraged on this board and the questions he asked should be aired and discussed. So for that, I apologize. Mike deserved better.
 
As for the rest of my post and its core message, I stand by it.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
Mike (TheoShmeo) and I have cleared the air via PM, as we've known each other for years, but I wanted to get some of the clarifications out in the open.
 
First, my post wasn't a response to the opening post in particular or even this thread in general. By late that afternoon I'd already subjected myself to the negative Chicken Little rants of Dennis & Callahan (I fell asleep watching the 14-inning game and awoke with the TV on and still tuned to NESN), Chris "Mad Dog" Russo (whose comparatively mild-mannered and far less inflammatory comments on MLBN about the Sox being in deep trouble were more geared toward negative assumptions drawn from small data samples), and Felger & Mazz (who combined the tacks of those earlier shows into a narrative designed to fuel reactive panic by their drive-time denizens). That's what drove my "a lot of overreaction going on" comment, even though such overreactions were wholly predictable.
 
It was also a response to the very mention of Cafardo. While he's probably a super-nice guy, I'm not exactly enamored with his reporting style, his regurgitation of groupthink storylines and information culled from the pool of beat writers in other cities, or his continued inability to comprehend (or outright refusal to attempt to understand) even some of the simplest newer metrics and their relevance to player valuation, roster/lineup construction, and historical comparisons. However, TS is correct that it isn't necessarily wrong to agree with something Cafardo writes. I've certainly done so myself at various times, going all the way back to his days at the Brockton Enterprise and Quincy Patriot-Ledger, although I've felt really dirty about it afterwards.
 
I also used the "nothing to see here" line, which in retrospect was poor word choice even if it fit my response literally. That line, which I admittedly use too often on this board, carries a dismissive and sarcastic tone and conveys a desire to stifle debate, which wasn't my intent. As TS notes, new threads are encouraged on this board and the questions he asked should be aired and discussed. So for that, I apologize. Mike deserved better.
 
As for the rest of my post and its core message, I stand by it.

All cool and appreciated.  I mostly agree with the substance of your prior post...just wanted to keep the conversation lively and explore the possibility. 
 
As I wrote to you, I still think there is SOME affect attached to letting 3/8th of the starting line-up of a champion go and not getting Lester done but that it doesn't really translate to much, all things considered.

 

[wolfe_boston]

Manny is a terrific comp because it demonstrates that a deal that every team thought was poisonous after three years turned out to be an underpayment after eight;  the comp was to the point that it is "likely that within three seasons Ellsbury will be seen as spectacularly overpaid."

There was a dip in the market that made Manny's contract unmovable. Him clearing waivers was a reaction to that rather than an assessment of his level of play. If his AAV had been around $15 million somebody would have snagged him Remember, that at around that time, guys like Pedro and Schilling were signing contracts for around $12-13 M.

 

[snowmanny]

Obviously.  The point was that his contract looked bad 37.5% of the way in and pretty good after it was all done, so one can't pass necessarily judgement on a long-term contract over the short-term.  But you are wrong about Pedro. He was getting 17.5 Million on an option year (edit: an option year picked up within the previous 12 months).

 

[wolfe_boston]

No, Pedro bitched about them not having exercised it and the Sox did so to both shut him up ant to improve the chances of resigning him. He signed with the Mets the next year for $53M for 4 years.

 

[teddywingman]

We don't know if Lester is going to be as good as Lester over the next 6 years, either, and it will be very expensive to find out.

By the way, has Lester ever had TMJ surgery?

Really? I assume part of this is a joke that I'm missing.

 

[wolfe_boston]

Really? I assume part of this is a joke that I'm missing.

If you're referring to TMJ I had meant TJ. Older pitchers, such as John Lackey, have had their first TJ surgery in their 30's. Usually it only happens once in a career so I am curious as to whether it's still a risk for Lester.


As for Lester being Lester I was referring to speculation, contained in other posts, of who could replace him over the next six years.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Every pitcher is at risk for injuries.Tommy John surgery, labrum, rotator cuff etc. Having TJ surgery once does not guarantee that you won't have it again.

 

[wolfe_boston]

It doesn't guarantee it but having two TJ's is pretty rare.  The best scenario is when the pitcher has it in his earlyj 20's.

 

[Just a bit outside]

It doesn't guarantee it but having two TJ's is pretty rare.  The best scenario is when the pitcher has it in his earlyj 20's.

Having two TJ's used to be rare but it is becoming more common.  This article says that the new ligament is stronger for 5 years and then it acts like a normal ligament.

 
 

Research I did in 2006 led me to the concept of the "Tommy John honeymoon." I found that five years after surgery, there were very few additional elbow problems, which indicated the transplanted ligament was stronger. Further research showed that the process called ligamentization was at work.
However, after the five-year period, the tendon becomes a normal ligament, subject to the same kind of overuse injuries. With so many pitchers getting a first surgery, often when they're quite young, there's a greater chance a second surgery will be necessary.

That would mean surgery in early 20's is not a great plan.
 
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/big-league-stew/study-124-current-mlb-pitchers-undergone-tommy-john-011100585.html

 

[wolfe_boston]

That's interesting.  I would have believed it almost had a bionic effect.
 
I can't get the link to paste but if you type "mehloff reyes tommy john" into google there is an article where a doctor named Mehloff cites 12 cases out of 1,169 surgeries where a second TJ was needed.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

That's interesting.  I would have believed it almost had a bionic effect.
 
I can't get the link to paste but if you type "mehloff reyes tommy john" into google there is an article where a doctor named Mehloff cites 12 cases out of 1,169 surgeries where a second TJ was needed.

 
 
When you type "mehloff reyes tommy john" into google, you get Did you mean: mehlhoff reyes tommy john"  when you click that alternative link, you get 542 articles.  I am NOT going to read them all to figure you what you meant.
 
You need to learn how to cut and paste links, or just stop posting info from other, questionable sites.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ctrl-V.  Just click in the text box and press Ctrl-V.  Or do what Lose did to get his link...type the title in the text box, then highlight it and click the "link" button (ninth one from the left on the row that starts with B).
 
Either that, or make more compelling posts that make people willing to google search for your sources.

 

[wolfe_boston]

It's the first one of the 542 hits.  You don't have to read all 542.
 
I've been doing control c, control v for years and years.  I've done it previously on this site do I don't know what's going on, now.  Anyway, the point is that a different doctor indicates it is uncommon for a second TJ to be performed and I am curious as to whether Jon Lester has ever had TJ done..

 

[WenZink]

....I am curious as to whether Jon Lester has ever had TJ done..

 
I don't know if this has been answered, but Lester has never had TJ surgery.  From what I remember, after drafting Lester out of HS in 2002, the Sox spent a lot of time over-hauling his delivery.  He'd only thrown 200 IP, total, before he hit Portland at the age of 21, but I saw him in June of 2005, and he was close to a finished product, save for a BB/9 ratio of 3.5.
 
It's interesting to note that Lester is from the state of Washington, in light of James Andrews' recent observation that the reason for so many TJ surgeries is that many pitchers were being abused in HS with long seasons and year-round leagues.  Maybe pitchers from cold-weather regions are better risks, even if they haven't been able to compile the extensive resumes that are typical of the warm-region studs.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'm bumping a thread that I started in April.  The question, in essence, was:  Would the sum total of Ben's off season moves and non-moves impact the Sox veterans/clubhouse? 
 
Buster Olney suggests that there has been an impact in the clubhouse caused by not getting Lester done.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/02/buster-olney-on-mfb-i-think-its-all-but-over-that-jon-lester-is-going-into-free-agency/
 

Olney continued: “There is a level of frustration on Lester’s side, and I don’t know if it’s Jon himself or people around him, because I’ve never been around a negotiation that’s gotten more tension attention* from other players on the team than this Lester talks. The frustration level of the other guys on this team on how this has played out is at a 9.5 out of 10, because they don’t get it.”
 
 

Is there anything to this?  Or is Olney overstating things or acting as a shill for some of the players?  Or is this just a convenient excuse for the crappy season?
 
My sense in April and still today is that while many of the players understood that the MFYs paid a huge premium for Ells and understood the Sox not even trying to compete with them, that Lester would be viewed differently.  And that the cumulative impact of not getting some of the key guys done (or starting where they supposedly started) would be viewed negatively by many of the players (even as they understood individual moves). 
 
I may not be right and Olney may also be off base. 
 
But this story makes me worry that Ben et al fell a little too much in love with their methods and success in 2013 and that it's going to have a negative impact on the team this year and until they change the players' perceptions.

 

[nattysez]

I'm bumping a thread that I started in April.  The question, in essence, was:  Would the sum total of Ben's off season moves and non-moves impact the Sox veterans/clubhouse? 
 
Buster Olney suggests that there has been an impact in the clubhouse caused by not getting Lester done.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/02/buster-olney-on-mfb-i-think-its-all-but-over-that-jon-lester-is-going-into-free-agency/
 
Is there anything to this?  Or is Olney overstating things or acting as a shill for some of the players?  Or is this just a convenient excuse for the crappy season?
 
My sense in April and still today is that while many of the players understood that the MFYs paid a huge premium for Ells and understood the Sox not even trying to compete with them, that Lester would be viewed differently.  And that the cumulative impact of not getting some of the key guys done (or starting where they supposedly started) would be viewed negatively by many of the players (even as they understood individual moves). 
 
I may not be right and Olney may also be off base. 
 
But this story makes me worry that Ben et al fell a little too much in love with their methods and success in 2013 and that it's going to have a negative impact on the team this year and until they change the players' perceptions.

 
Gammo tweeted something similar yesterday, which may mean Lester's people are stirring up trouble or may mean there really is discontent amoung the players:
 

Red Sox Last in R, 14th in OPS,12 in HR. When they signed Pedroia, he gave back $ on org. competitiveness. Now see Lester shortsheeted
 

https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/484002133164183552

 

[Stitch01]

I still am very confident the effect is close to zero.  Certainly isn't effecting Lester on the field. Heck they even went back and signed Drew, which was part of the hypothesis of what the problem was in April.