Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,708
 
 
As for the thoughts that we should have wrapped him up before the season, I personally was still worried about the course he was on, and if the 2013 playoffs or 2012 season was a better indicator of who he would be, and I think the extra dollars we are paying if we end up signing him are actually a reasonable tradeoff for both Cespedes (and his trade value) and increased certainty through a full 2014 season of him demonstrating health, focus, and competence.
 
An interesting thought - that some of what we might wind up paying prospectively is in effect the premium on an insurance policy the RS had in place to confirm his 2014 value, rather than plunging in blindly in early 2014 on the unproven belief that he'd be worth an elevated salary. To take the analogy further (maybe too far), a lot of us complain about paying the premium on our own coverage  when it comes due because we never had a claim against the coverage. The value of coverage on a risk that didn't materialize seems too intangible, but it was substantial because it allowed us to hedge against the risk.
 
Looked at that way, if his 2014 salary in retrospect was below market, some part of a prospective "over-payment" simply pays the 'premium' for 2014 'insurance' and amortizes the catch-up payment for 2014's below market salary..
 
(Of course, I'm too lazy to confirm that his 2014 salary was below market.)
 

pockmeister

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
372
London, England
koufax37 said:
There are a million ways to build out a rotation, especially when you have payroll flexibility, major league caliber power hitters and a lot of prospects.  I think Ben is smart enough to have some creative alternatives to just Lester/Scherzer/Hamels and won't lock in to one option if the price isn't right.
 
This is a very pertinent point, and reflective of where my thinking has got to on the Lester subject.  The phase "it's only money" seems to have been used to death on this topic in the last few weeks, almost as if there's no opportunity cost from dropping huge numbers of dollars on Lester.  However, the ownership have shown an aversion to going through the luxury tax boundary when it comes to payroll, so over-committing so many dollars to a single player is very limiting to the Red Sox.  Having a generous payroll gives the team a significant competitive advantage, and retaining flexibility within that payroll is a vital element of that advantage - it's that flexibility that allows the mid-season moves to be made to address injuries, or to be opportunistic in adding rental players on bad / expiring contracts who can aid a championship push.  Taking away that flexibility would seem to be the first step towards where the Yankees have ended up - an inflexible roster of over-inflated contracts for players well into their decline years.  
 
I hope the front office has made its final offer to Lester.  It's already much higher and longer than I would see sense in paying for a borderline-ace pitcher on the downside of his career - all be it one who will likely have 2-3 strong seasons in the near future.  There are plenty of other options out there.  Highly preferable to trade some of the over-hyped prospects (outside of Betts and Swihart) to add younger pitching, rather than to tie the payroll up in knots just to add a single aging pitcher.  That is a more efficient use of resources - it uses the "production line" of talent in the minors, and limits the effect on overall payroll to enable flexibility to be retained.  I'd rather be in a position where the ballclub is set up to win 88ish games at the start of the season, but with some headroom in the payroll to add additional talent when other teams drop out of contention and want to get some kind of return on useful (but expensive) players.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
i kind of agree with the sentiment that not getting an "ace" wouldnt be a disaster. Honestly, looking ahead at next offseason, there are more pitchers to spend the money on and I think some of them would be better investments than Lester. I think Jordan Zimmermann is a better pitcher than Jon Lester and would rather give him a big deal than Lester. Cueto could get a reasonable deal as well
 

AnkleStigmata

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2005
1,148
@mikemokr
 

Otis Foster said:
Plus 3. Theo used up all his good will with me when he scampered away from the 2011 pigsty.
 
Like probably just about everyone I'd rather Lester come back here without being grossly overpaid, though I'm also struck by how folks aren't mentioning the 2012 pigsty (yes I'm aware 2013 followed 2012). But I wouldn't disregard many decades of history and view the Cubs now primarily as Theo's team. Aside from rooting for laundry I'm a fan of good stories and it would be a helluva story if Lester led the Cubs to success. And honestly [sox cap off]it would make for an even better story if, say, that happened directly at the expense of the Red Sox in a Cubs-Sox WS[/sox cap back on, along with asbestos suit and pitchfork-deflecting armor].
 
 
Montana Fan said:
I'll bet $50 to the Jimy Fund that Lester receives a 7 year guaranteed offer.
 
If he doesn't does the Jimmy Fund have to pay you? Because I'm not sure I could get behind that. edit: Oh wait, you said Jimy Fund. If Jimy Williams has a fund I might be OK with it, depending on what kind of fund. 
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,340
AnkleStigmata said:
 
 
Like probably just about everyone I'd rather Lester come back here without being grossly overpaid, though I'm also struck by how folks aren't mentioning the 2012 pigsty (yes I'm aware 2013 followed 2012). But I wouldn't disregard many decades of history and view the Cubs now primarily as Theo's team. Aside from rooting for laundry I'm a fan of good stories and it would be a helluva story if Lester led the Cubs to success. And honestly [sox cap off]it would make for an even better story if, say, that happened directly at the expense of the Red Sox in a Cubs-Sox WS[/sox cap back on, along with asbestos suit and pitchfork-deflecting armor].
 
 
 
If he doesn't does the Jimmy Fund have to pay you? Because I'm not sure I could get behind that. edit: Oh wait, you said Jimy Fund. If Jimy Williams has a fund I might be OK with it, depending on what kind of fund. 
You know what would be an even better story? Lester choosing the Sox over the Cubs, Chicago getting Max, and then us facing them in the 2015 World Series where Jon out-duels Scherzer in the process of us winning another title and shattering the hopes and dreams of Cubs Nation.
 

Hairps

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2006
1,862
Hollywood for Ugly People
I hope the front office is nearing the point of walking away. I suppose you could offer 6/$140 at this stage just for the extra PR spin of "going the extra mile." I've always like Lester and appreciate what he did for the club, but at these years & dollars it feels like it might be time to move on.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,708
 
Like probably just about everyone I'd rather Lester come back here without being grossly overpaid, though I'm also struck by how folks aren't mentioning the 2012 pigsty (yes I'm aware 2013 followed 2012). But I wouldn't disregard many decades of history and view the Cubs now primarily as Theo's team. Aside from rooting for laundry I'm a fan of good stories and it would be a helluva story if Lester led the Cubs to success. And honestly [sox cap off]it would make for an even better story if, say, that happened directly at the expense of the Red Sox in a Cubs-Sox WS[/sox cap back on, along with asbestos suit and pitchfork-deflecting armor].
 
 
 
I bet you like wet leather jumpsuits, too.
 
More seriously (slightly), I'm a bit old fashioned. When you make a commitment to work for someone, you stick your deal out, even through bad times. I just can't get comfortable with a man who bails out at the first sign of trouble. Even if the underlying cause was conflict with LL the human grinding stone, gut it out. That's what we expect of players, and there's no reason that Theo should be judged by a different standard.
 
Anyway, this is getting way off topic. Mea culpa.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
DukeSox said:
How much inflation has there been the past 6 years?  Do you expect inflation to increase significantly the next 6?
 
Or do you mean wage inflation among ballplayers?  
Just to answer this,team payrolls have increased 5.4% over the past decade but have more than doubled over the past two years likely due to the new tv deals.
 
I don't think it can sustain that level much longer.  3-5% is a wild guess over the next 6.  If a win is worth 6.5mill then Lester has a case for $25 per season as he'd just have to average a bit less than 4 but that's before inflation.  With inflation for the first year it's about $26.  Even if it stays flat, that's 6yrs/156.
 
The Red Sox offer is for an average of 3.5 WAR (Steamers exact projection for next year) ($138/6yrs/6.5) per season based on a win being 6.5mill but not accounting for inflation.  They could always use the inflation cost as a signing bonus I suppose.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Interesting way to look at it.  6/138 = $23 million per year.  3.5 WAR x $6.5 million = $22.8 million.  So you're basically right on.  Starting in 2008, here's Lester's bWAR numbers: 
 
6.1
6.3
5.2
4.4
0.7
3.0
4.6 (2.7 in Bos, 1.9 in Oak)
 
That averages out to 4.3 bWAR per season.  Let's say he has this kind of career arc...
 
2015:  4.4 WAR
2016:  3.8 WAR
2017:  3.5 WAR
2018:  2.8 WAR
2019:  1.3 WAR
2020:  0.7 WAR
 
That comes to 2.75 WAR per season, on average.  Now, let's say the contract is structured like this:
 
2015:  20m
2016:  21m
2017:  22m
2018:  25m
2019:  25m
2020:  25m
 
Now let's put the two together:
 
2015:  20 m / 4.4 WAR = 4.5m/WAR
2016:  21 m / 3.8 WAR = 5.5m/WAR
2017:  22 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.3m/WAR
2018:  25 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.9m/WAR
2019:  25 m / 1.3 WAR = 19.2m/WAR
2020:  25 m / 0.7 WAR = 35.7m/WAR
 
That would represent a HUMONGOUS overpay at the end of his contract.  But at the beginning, the first two years would be huge bargains, with 2017 also being a bargain.  By 2018 it will probably be about market price.  The last two years, though.  Yikes.
 
Let's say his contract is dead even across the board:  $23 million per year.  Same exercise:
 
2015:  23 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.2m/WAR
2016:  23 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.1m/WAR
2017:  23 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2018:  23 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.2m/WAR
2019:  23 m / 1.3 WAR = 17.7m/WAR
2020:  23 m / 0.7 WAR = 32.9m/WAR
 
Less of a bargain in the beginning, less of an overpay at the end, but still, same basic idea.  Of course it's entirely possible he won't follow such a curve.  Maybe the first four years he'll be a solid 3.5 WAR guy, but at the end he'll fall off a cliff. Or maybe at the end, he'll just end up being a solid, not great, 2.0 WAR pitcher.  Who knows.
 
That's why the Sox are employing very, very smart number crunchers.
 

ItOnceWasMyLife

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 16, 2008
1,827
Hairps said:
I hope the front office is nearing the point of walking away. I suppose you could offer 6/$140 at this stage just for the extra PR spin of "going the extra mile." I've always like Lester and appreciate what he did for the club, but at these years & dollars it feels like it might be time to move on.
+1  There's more options available.  Lester's contact numbers are nearing his WAR value.  They can probably make a better deal with someone else and still have room to make a major add at mid-season if they're close or in front.  The fear that he'll turn into the Red Sox version of C.C. (wearing down in later years) is growing on me.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
ItOnceWasMyLife said:
+1  There's more options available.  Lester's contact numbers are nearing his WAR value.  They can probably make a better deal with someone else and still have room to make a major add at mid-season if they're close or in front.  The fear that he'll turn into the Red Sox version of C.C. (wearing down in later years) is growing on me.
 
CC pitched an incredible amount of IP (averaged 230 IP + playoffs) 2007-2013. With a bad body and insane pitch counts. Its really not that surprising that his knees are starting to go. Lester takes care of himself and hasn't been abused nearly as much over his career. Nobody knows how he'll hold up health wise, but I think he's done a better job so far than CC and his handlers. 
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Fear is an amazing thing. You could pick any number of highly paid athletes and only select those who broke down or sucked as a reason never to highly pay an athlete. Kind of silly.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,708
The numbers are getting up there. The problem is not only today's market; these figures go into the baseline for salary asks from 2015 FAs.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
geoduck no quahog said:
Fear is an amazing thing. You could pick any number of highly paid athletes and only select those who broke down or sucked as a reason never to highly pay an athlete. Kind of silly.
 
It's called risk analysis, in less crude terms, perhaps. You merely factor in empirical evidence to make a decision. Many highly paid pitchers have indeed broken down or sucked (and, yes, many have not) after getting huge contracts. What would be silly would be not integrating that in the decision-making.   
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Alex Speier with an interesting parallel to the failed Pedro negotiations. Nothing earth shattering, but a little sobering, especially the comparisons to the 2005 rotation rebuild attempts.
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/12/02/past-prelude-pedro-martinez-jon-lester-and-pot
 
And the way that Martinez remembers it, his professed desire to be a Red Sox for life had an ironic outcome, with the Sox trying to exploit that good will rather than matching the emerging market for his services. 
"I think I hurt my chances [of returning] by being like I've always been, outspoken, from the heart.  I think I was a little bit too outspoken at the time to talk to the Red Sox at the end of the season," Martinez remembered in late-2013. "[After the 2004 World Series the media] asked me if that was my last game I pitched for the Red Sox.  And you remember my answer? If I'm not mistaken I said, 'Hopefully not. I'm not expecting this to be my last outing with the Red Sox. I have too much to lose. I just bought a new house.  All my interests are staying in Boston.'
 
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,723
MetroWest, MA
But the Red Sox were right when it came to re-signing Pedro. I don't think it was so much about exploiting goodwill as it was being terrified his arm was going to fall off.
 
Lester's health is far less of a question than Pedro's was.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
If the $130M offer from the Sox is what's really on the table I see no reason to improve on it.  If Lester takes $5-10M more from another team, then the whole discount & money not being the most important thing was BS at the time (or is no longer true).  And, if it's signficantly more than $10M above that value then it's starting to get into territory where the odds go way up that it will be a horendous contract.
 

BarrettsHiddenBall

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
438
I assume this idea has been floated before and rejected as either impractical or just against the rules, but it would be nice if they could leverage this year's "no major tax consequences" by offering 1 year at $50 million, then a 5/100 extension on opening day.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,220
Somerville, MA
Laser Show said:
Alex Speier with an interesting parallel to the failed Pedro negotiations. Nothing earth shattering, but a little sobering, especially the comparisons to the 2005 rotation rebuild attempts.
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/12/02/past-prelude-pedro-martinez-jon-lester-and-pot
 
 
I know Pedro thinks this but I don't think he's right.  I think the Red Sox low balled him because he had trouble going deep into games and warning signs were building that he wasn't going to be elite going forward.
 

ItOnceWasMyLife

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 16, 2008
1,827
foulkehampshire said:
 
CC pitched an incredible amount of IP (averaged 230 IP + playoffs) 2007-2013. With a bad body and insane pitch counts. Its really not that surprising that his knees are starting to go. Lester takes care of himself and hasn't been abused nearly as much over his career. Nobody knows how he'll hold up health wise, but I think he's done a better job so far than CC and his handlers. 
He's definitely taken better care of himself.  And been less abused.
 
geoduck no quahog said:
Fear is an amazing thing. You could pick any number of highly paid athletes and only select those who broke down or sucked as a reason never to highly pay an athlete. Kind of silly.
Of course it's silly.  But the point is/was - the higher the AAV gets, the more costly a potential breakdown becomes.  There comes a point where that breakdown becomes too expensive.  Even if the luxury cap is at $200MM in the future, having a $23-24MM hole would be deadly. Even where the number's at now is pretty ruineous.  As GM, I'd go another direction, most of which have alreay been brought up.  We've got all these trade chips, time to use them.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
gammoseditor said:
 
I know Pedro thinks this but I don't think he's right.  I think the Red Sox low balled him because he had trouble going deep into games and warning signs were building that he wasn't going to be elite going forward.
And IIRC they offered him a fairly generous contract, but at three years. He was good in the first year, started getting hurt in the second, and by the end of the third his shoulder had given out. [The fourth year he actually got, he basically missed.] So really, the Red Sox offered to overpay Pedro for a reasonably foreseeable outcome... just not as much as the Mets did.
 
Anyway, Lester's situation is very different, a pitcher in his prime still.
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,628
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
gammoseditor said:
 
I know Pedro thinks this but I don't think he's right.  I think the Red Sox low balled him because he had trouble going deep into games and warning signs were building that he wasn't going to be elite going forward.
This is the way I recall it too (ALCS game 7, anyone?).  The morning the signing by the Mets was announced, I ran into Minaya at school and I specifically remember (I had my little guy on my shoulders) discussing how he could give that contract (years and $) to a guy with that kind of arm/shoulder.
 
EDIT:  and for the record, yes, Minaya was proud as a peacock that that day for his coup.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
They were definitely right with Pedro and it is a different situation. The more important takeaway from that, for me at least, is that it's really hard to rebuild a rotation, and harder still on a budget. Another way of saying I think spending on free agents is the best way to approach the rotation.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Laser Show said:
They were definitely right with Pedro and it is a different situation. The more important takeaway from that, for me at least, is that it's really hard to rebuild a rotation, and harder still on a budget.
Another way of saying I think spending on free agents is the best way to approach the rotation.
Exactly, they were right with Pedro as the Mets spent $52Million for only 8.1 (BRef) WAR (most of which was accumulated in 2005). Except the Red Sox needed pitchers and had to spend money to get them so they ended up giving Clement $26Million for 2.8 WAR.

This is always the problem. Lester could be an overpay, but the alternatives might be worse.
 

lxt

New Member
Sep 12, 2012
525
Massachusetts
ivanvamp said:
Remove content for brevity
 
Now let's put the two together:
 
2015:  20 m / 4.4 WAR = 4.5m/WAR
2016:  21 m / 3.8 WAR = 5.5m/WAR
2017:  22 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.3m/WAR
2018:  25 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.9m/WAR
2019:  25 m / 1.3 WAR = 19.2m/WAR
2020:  25 m / 0.7 WAR = 35.7m/WAR
 
That would represent a HUMONGOUS overpay at the end of his contract.  But at the beginning, the first two years would be huge bargains, with 2017 also being a bargain.  By 2018 it will probably be about market price.  The last two years, though.  Yikes.
 
Let's say his contract is dead even across the board:  $23 million per year.  Same exercise:
 
2015:  23 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.2m/WAR
2016:  23 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.1m/WAR
2017:  23 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2018:  23 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.2m/WAR
2019:  23 m / 1.3 WAR = 17.7m/WAR
2020:  23 m / 0.7 WAR = 32.9m/WAR
 
Less of a bargain in the beginning, less of an overpay at the end, but still, same basic idea.  Of course it's entirely possible he won't follow such a curve.  Maybe the first four years he'll be a solid 3.5 WAR guy, but at the end he'll fall off a cliff. Or maybe at the end, he'll just end up being a solid, not great, 2.0 WAR pitcher.  Who knows.
 
That's why the Sox are employing very, very smart number crunchers.
What if the Sox structured his deal as follows:
 
2015:  25 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.7m/WAR
2016:  25 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2017:  25 m / 3.5 WAR = 7.1m/WAR
2018:  22 m / 2.8 WAR = 7.9m/WAR
2019:  21 m / 1.3 WAR = 16.1m/WAR
2020:  20 m / 0.7 WAR = 28.6m/WAR
 
Still costly as the contract advances but just a little more tenable.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
I always felt Clement was doing reasonably well, as most of his WAR had been racked up BEFORE he got slammed with a baseball upside his head. He was never the same after that.

There's injury risk, and then there's "goddamn it, if that ball had been two inches to the left instead..."
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
DavidTai said:
I always felt Clement was doing reasonably well, as most of his WAR had been racked up BEFORE he got slammed with a baseball upside his head. He was never the same after that.

There's injury risk, and then there's "goddamn it, if that ball had been two inches to the left instead..."
He ended up shredding his rotator cuff within the next year, though, so I'm not sure how different things would've been.
 
Anyways, back on topic. I'm fully in support of over paying for Lester (provided it's not too crazy). Would rather the devil I know. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
“@pgammo: Laugh @”mystery teams,“ surprise
but 3 GMs think there is a serious new entrant on Lester. Must
work with Pediatric Cancer Foundation”
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
lxt said:
What if the Sox structured his deal as follows:
 
2015:  25 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.7m/WAR
2016:  25 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2017:  25 m / 3.5 WAR = 7.1m/WAR
2018:  22 m / 2.8 WAR = 7.9m/WAR
2019:  21 m / 1.3 WAR = 16.1m/WAR
2020:  20 m / 0.7 WAR = 28.6m/WAR
 
Still costly as the contract advances but just a little more tenable.
Unless I'm mistaken, the AAV is what's used for luxury tax calculations.  Doesn't matter what you pay him in any particular year. 
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
lxt said:
What if the Sox structured his deal as follows:
 
2015:  25 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.7m/WAR
2016:  25 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2017:  25 m / 3.5 WAR = 7.1m/WAR
2018:  22 m / 2.8 WAR = 7.9m/WAR
2019:  21 m / 1.3 WAR = 16.1m/WAR
2020:  20 m / 0.7 WAR = 28.6m/WAR
 
Still costly as the contract advances but just a little more tenable.
 
Why would you ever do a deal like this? It's not about when you pay for production throughout the contract, it's the total production you get for the total cost. Beyond that, any cash outflows that you can push into later years is the move in just about every situation if you're looking at this just from a discounted cash flow standpoint. There is absolutely zero incentive for the Sox to use a front-loaded contract here.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,340
soxhop411 said:
@pgammo: Laugh @mystery teams, surprise
but 3 GMs think there is a serious new entrant on Lester. Must
work with Pediatric Cancer Foundation
I'm having a little trouble figuring out what this means but my best guess is:
"Laugh about the idea of a mystery team if you want, but GM's feel there is another serious commitment that will have to come as part of a Lester signing. Being able/willing to work with the Pediatric Cancer Foundation."
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
It just means there might be another team in on Lester and they're serious about signing him. 
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
DavidTai said:
I always felt Clement was doing reasonably well, as most of his WAR had been racked up BEFORE he got slammed with a baseball upside his head. He was never the same after that.

There's injury risk, and then there's "goddamn it, if that ball had been two inches to the left instead..."
That ball must have hit him pretty hard and caused him to suck the month leading up to that. His shoulder was already torn. In fact he was better the month he came back from the head injury, possibly due to the extra rest.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
I originally read that as "Pediatric Cancer Foundation new entrant in Lester negotiations" which was very confusing.
 
EDIT: Disregard, the tweet I saw earlier and was referencing was Pepin
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
MakMan44 said:
It just means there might be another team in on Lester and they're serious about signing him. 
 
Or that the Pediatric Cancer foundation is a new, serious factor in these discussions that any bidder has to account for. Who knows, Gammons is often as undecipherable as a Nepalese riddle.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
ALiveH said:
If the $130M offer from the Sox is what's really on the table I see no reason to improve on it.
 
Well sure, you don't see a reason.
 
But it's entirely possible the Sox value him at more than that and, if they need to, will bump it. You're making deadlines for the team when there's no way you (or any of us) know what their ultimate value on Lester is.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Hmm. Looks like I was wrong about the tweet. Thanks for the correction all. 
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,201
Cambridge
Reading this board, I think I've come to the conclusion that I might be the only member of SoSH against signing Lester at 6/130 and in favor of going harder after Scherzer.  I realize that Lester's been in Boston and that colors our impressions of him, but can somebody give me a reasonable argument that Lester and Scherzer are even close to similarly valuable going forward?  
 
WAR has its share of flaws, but using that as rough proxy for value, it's not particularly close. 
 
Last 3 years average WAR: Scherzer 5.6, Lester 2.7
Last 2 years average WAR: Scherzer 6.4, Lester 3.9
Last year WAR: Scherzer 6.0, Lester 4.8
 
Moreover, Scherzer appears to be near the peak of his career, while Lester is past that peak.  Let's be generous and decide that 2012 essentially didn't happen.  Then Lester's WAR by year (over 100 IP) would be 6.1, 6.3, 5.2, 4.4, [omit], 3.0, 4.8.  Scherzer, for comparison?  1.3, 3.3, 1.3, 4.2, 6.7, 6.0.  Scherzer has also thrown over 300 fewer innings at a similar age.  
 
So, putting aside all of the emotion associated with Lester and just asking what makes the best sense for constructing a rotation, I would think a reasonable projection has Scherzer being about 1 WAR better than Lester this year, as well as being closer to his peak, so that over 6 years, that gap is likely to end up at more than 6.  If we think that Lester is worth 6/130, and one win is going for about $7M, it's hard not to be willing to go 6/170 for Scherzer even with the draft pick attached, and current reports suggest that 7/170 (which is a lot, but clearly superior to 6/170) would be enough to get him.  
 
I don't know that Scherzer is actually worth that price, but if not, I think the conclusion would be that Lester isn't worth 6/130 either.  I also don't think the Sox made a mistake with Lester this offseason -- he had a great contract year, but it would have been crazy to pay 6/120 for a pitcher with a total of 3.7 WAR in his last two seasons.  
 
In fact, if Lester's last three seasons (2.7 WAR average) are what he averages over the course of his contract, then at $7M/WAR, you'd want to pay him $18.9M/year.  So if you sign him for 6/130, you're paying for a 31-year old pitcher to spend the next 6 years being, on average, a better pitcher than he was at ages 28-30.  To me, Scherzer at his rumored price is a much, much better bet than Lester at his.  I seem to be the only one making this argument, so I suppose I'm missing something major here.  Maybe somebody could help me figure it out?
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
ivanvamp said:
Interesting way to look at it.  6/138 = $23 million per year.  3.5 WAR x $6.5 million = $22.8 million.  So you're basically right on.  Starting in 2008, here's Lester's bWAR numbers: 
 
6.1
6.3
5.2
4.4
0.7
3.0
4.6 (2.7 in Bos, 1.9 in Oak)
 
That averages out to 4.3 bWAR per season.  Let's say he has this kind of career arc...
 
2015:  4.4 WAR
2016:  3.8 WAR
2017:  3.5 WAR
2018:  2.8 WAR
2019:  1.3 WAR
2020:  0.7 WAR
 
That comes to 2.75 WAR per season, on average.  Now, let's say the contract is structured like this:
 
2015:  20m
2016:  21m
2017:  22m
2018:  25m
2019:  25m
2020:  25m
 
Now let's put the two together:
 
2015:  20 m / 4.4 WAR = 4.5m/WAR
2016:  21 m / 3.8 WAR = 5.5m/WAR
2017:  22 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.3m/WAR
2018:  25 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.9m/WAR
2019:  25 m / 1.3 WAR = 19.2m/WAR
2020:  25 m / 0.7 WAR = 35.7m/WAR
 
That would represent a HUMONGOUS overpay at the end of his contract.  But at the beginning, the first two years would be huge bargains, with 2017 also being a bargain.  By 2018 it will probably be about market price.  The last two years, though.  Yikes.
 
Let's say his contract is dead even across the board:  $23 million per year.  Same exercise:
 
2015:  23 m / 4.4 WAR = 5.2m/WAR
2016:  23 m / 3.8 WAR = 6.1m/WAR
2017:  23 m / 3.5 WAR = 6.6m/WAR
2018:  23 m / 2.8 WAR = 8.2m/WAR
2019:  23 m / 1.3 WAR = 17.7m/WAR
2020:  23 m / 0.7 WAR = 32.9m/WAR
 
Less of a bargain in the beginning, less of an overpay at the end, but still, same basic idea.  Of course it's entirely possible he won't follow such a curve.  Maybe the first four years he'll be a solid 3.5 WAR guy, but at the end he'll fall off a cliff. Or maybe at the end, he'll just end up being a solid, not great, 2.0 WAR pitcher.  Who knows.
 
That's why the Sox are employing very, very smart number crunchers.
Excellent breakdown, but we're also assuming that the cost of 1 WAR remains constant over the life of the contract. I don't think that's a fair assumption. I couldn't find average salary for 2014. From 2012 to 2013 the average salary increased 5.4%. Assuming a 5% increase annually you can figure the below for 1 WAR:
2013: $3,390,000
2014: $3,559,500
2015: $3,737,475
2016: $3,924,349
2017: $4,120,566
2018: $4,326,594
2019: $4,542,924
2020: $4,770,070
2021: $5,008,574
 
Assuming the cost of 1 WAR increases with the AAV the cost of war for 2014 and beyond is as follows:
2014: $6,500,000
2015: $6,825,000
2016: $7,166,250
2017: $7,524,563
2018: $7,900,791
2019: $8,295,830
2020: $8,710,622
2021: $9,146,153
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
CSteinhardt said:
Reading this board, I think I've come to the conclusion that I might be the only member of SoSH against signing Lester at 6/130 and in favor of going harder after Scherzer.  I realize that Lester's been in Boston and that colors our impressions of him, but can somebody give me a reasonable argument that Lester and Scherzer are even close to similarly valuable going forward?  
 
WAR has its share of flaws, but using that as rough proxy for value, it's not particularly close. 
 
Last 3 years average WAR: Scherzer 5.6, Lester 2.7
Last 2 years average WAR: Scherzer 6.4, Lester 3.9
Last year WAR: Scherzer 6.0, Lester 4.8
 
Moreover, Scherzer appears to be near the peak of his career, while Lester is past that peak.  Let's be generous and decide that 2012 essentially didn't happen.  Then Lester's WAR by year (over 100 IP) would be 6.1, 6.3, 5.2, 4.4, [omit], 3.0, 4.8.  Scherzer, for comparison?  1.3, 3.3, 1.3, 4.2, 6.7, 6.0.  Scherzer has also thrown over 300 fewer innings at a similar age.  
 
So, putting aside all of the emotion associated with Lester and just asking what makes the best sense for constructing a rotation, I would think a reasonable projection has Scherzer being about 1 WAR better than Lester this year, as well as being closer to his peak, so that over 6 years, that gap is likely to end up at more than 6.  If we think that Lester is worth 6/130, and one win is going for about $7M, it's hard not to be willing to go 6/170 for Scherzer even with the draft pick attached, and current reports suggest that 7/170 (which is a lot, but clearly superior to 6/170) would be enough to get him.  
 
I don't know that Scherzer is actually worth that price, but if not, I think the conclusion would be that Lester isn't worth 6/130 either.  I also don't think the Sox made a mistake with Lester this offseason -- he had a great contract year, but it would have been crazy to pay 6/120 for a pitcher with a total of 3.7 WAR in his last two seasons.  
 
In fact, if Lester's last three seasons (2.7 WAR average) are what he averages over the course of his contract, then at $7M/WAR, you'd want to pay him $18.9M/year.  So if you sign him for 6/130, you're paying for a 31-year old pitcher to spend the next 6 years being, on average, a better pitcher than he was at ages 28-30.  To me, Scherzer at his rumored price is a much, much better bet than Lester at his.  I seem to be the only one making this argument, so I suppose I'm missing something major here.  Maybe somebody could help me figure it out?
 
Only major thing that comes to mind is their respective pitching motions.  Lester appears to have a much more fluid and "textbook" motion whereas Scherzer has a more explosive motion that seems to put more strain/stress on his shoulder.  So theoretically at least, Scherzer might be more of a ticking timebomb health-wise, even with the lesser "wear and tear" innings-wise.
 
I imagine the fact that no team has a better knowledge of Lester's medical and usage history is also a big factor in why they'd pursue him over Scherzer.  I'd have to think that Lester's price would probably have to exceed Scherzer before the latter became a more attractive option.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
soxhop411 said:
Can someone translate that for me?
 
He's saying that breaking it out by year is a pointless exercise and the reason we talk in terms of AAV in the first place. Also, teams will always prefer to back-load contracts if the option is available because inflation makes the future dollars less valuable than today's dollars.
 
I am similarly not sure why this discussion is even happening. It's just not a useful way of thinking about value.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
There is no Rev said:
 
He's saying that breaking it out by year is a pointless exercise and the reason we talk in terms of AAV in the first place. Also, teams will always prefer to back-load contracts if the option is available because inflation makes the future dollars less valuable than today's dollars.
 
I am similarly not sure why this discussion is even happening. It's just not a useful way of thinking about value.
I'm talking about the Gammons tweet
 

BarrettsHiddenBall

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
438
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Excellent breakdown, but we're also assuming that the cost of 1 WAR remains constant over the life of the contract. I don't think that's a fair assumption. I couldn't find average salary for 2014. From 2012 to 2013 the average salary increased 5.4%. Assuming a 5% increase annually you can figure the below for 1 WAR:
2013: $3,390,000
2014: $3,559,500
2015: $3,737,475
2016: $3,924,349
2017: $4,120,566
2018: $4,326,594
2019: $4,542,924
2020: $4,770,070
2021: $5,008,574
 
Assuming the cost of 1 WAR increases with the AAV the cost of war for 2014 and beyond is as follows:
2014: $6,500,000
2015: $6,825,000
2016: $7,166,250
2017: $7,524,563
2018: $7,900,791
2019: $8,295,830
2020: $8,710,622
2021: $9,146,153
$/WAR will increase, but it's tricky to project; the recent increase has primarily reflected the injection of cash coming from local TV deals, which are currently at a high premium due to the ongoing transition in TV + advertising (sports is currently king, since folks are more willing to watch live rather than Tivo or stream via Hulu etc...).
 
Teams are spending more in anticipation of a new deal (to make themselves more desirable) and in the short-run after the deals are completed, but with some of these deals going for an extended period, the impetus to invest in the team may diminish. And, once cable TV figures out WTF is going on with Tivo/intertubes, the current premium on live sports may be diminished, reducing the value of future deals. Another factor is the luxury tax, which doesn't seem to be keeping up with WAR/$ inflation.
 
tldr: recent extreme inflation in WAR/$ likely reflects the specific circumstances of the recent/current TV-advertising world, and shouldn't be assumed to continue at this rate.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
soxhop411 said:
I'm talking about the Gammons tweet
I saw the other replies already.
 
I think he's saying that there's a new team in on Lester, and that the team's pull is that it works with the Pediatric Cancer Foundation.
Maybe he meant it as a riddle? Which would mean he suggested the Rays.? I'm just speculating here.
 
EDIT: Yes, I know. The thought of it reeks of dementia, so does Peter Gammons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.