Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.

[Drek717]

 

Sure, that's possible...but not really likely.

Steamer projects the following FIP (Sox pitchers, FA / potential trade targets)

Scherzer 3.10

Lester 3.42
Iwakuma 3.42
McCarthy 3.45
Liriano 3.46
Hamels 3.48
Cueto 3.49
Shields 3.56

Niese 3.92
Hammel 3.94
E. Santana 3.94
Masterson 3.95
Buchholz 4.06

Latos 4.34
Workman 4.37
Kelly 4.39
RDLR 4.47
Webster 4.90

Steamer also projects McCarthy to throw only 153 innings, which would still be the 3rd most in a single season for his career.  Also, a 3.45 FIP from McCarthy would be the second best full season of his career and over half a "run" below his career average.
 
Regardless of his FIP though, the problem with McCarthy isn't him showing up and posting a 4.5 FIP, the problem is him starting 32 games over a three year contract as opposed to 32 games a season.  He's 31, he'll turn 32 in the middle of next season.  The injury history and threat of age related decline give huge red flags that he simply doesn't take the mound enough to earn whatever "bargain" multi-year deal he gets this winter.
 
Also, if the Sox didn't have Buchholz, Kelly, and all the young guys I could totally see going after McCarthy as a 3-5 starter with upside and if he doesn't stay healthy then relying on the farm, but the Sox do already have a wealth of 3-5 types.  They need #1/#2 types.  McCarthy falls into the same category as Masterson to me.  Good risk/reward signings for teams looking for mid to back end starters from the FA market and are willing to pay a premium over someone like Hammel or Peavy for the potential to see #2 production if they catch a good year.

 
 

There's risk in that.

That staff could be terrible. By the time we are sure of that, we will have destroyed trade value for many of our young starters AND likely dug ourselves into another last place hole in a much improved AL East.

There's also the risk that some of the 2015 FA SPs will be extended or simply don't wish to play here (David Price?).

I think GMs around baseball aren't as eager as we'd like to give us impact pitching in exchange for 2 or 3 of our questionable young guys. We keep coming up with these 4 quarters for a dollar scenarios, and it doesn't look like that's a reality in this market.

So how are we going to destroy the trade value of pitchers other GMs currently are unwilling to give impact players for today?
 
I'm not suggesting any four quarters for a dollar scenario, I'm suggesting you treat RDLR, Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes, Wright, and Escobar as consumable resources in 2015 if the Sox fail to add two legitimate front end starters.  In that scenario keep two rotation spots open for them, the first two up is decided in ST.  They get 4-5 starts tos how what they're capable of.  If they sink the next guy comes up.  By mid-season Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson join the mix.
 
I personally have more faith in finding a good season from one or two of the wide array of young starting pitchers the club has amassed than getting good value out of any early 30's FA SP on a multi-year deal.
 
As for the damage that would cause to the 2015 season, I don't see it as being dramatically worse than going with a bunch of mid-tier starters and hoping to catch a breakout there instead for more money and less team control.  So in one scenario you win 85 games and in the other you win 75.  You aren't making the playoffs or being a season-long division competitor in either scenario.

 

[Doctor G]

The better option for the Sox, if they don't get Lester, is to build a solid rotation of #2s and #3s, have a top 3 offense and a stud bullpen.  
 
Sign McCarthy.
Trade Cespedes+ for Porcello.
Sign Shields.  Short years, big AAV.  3/66
 
Enter the year with a Shields/McCarthy/Porcello/Buchholz/Kelly rotation.  Let the young guns beef up the bullpen, or sit in AAA as insurance, ready in case one of these guys goes down with injury or is ineffective.  But that rotation should give you solid innings most times out.  Shields, during the regular season, is terrific, and if Clay is odd-year-awesome Clay, then this rotation becomes superb.  If not, oh well, you have insurance.  
 
That rotation isn't terribly expensive, and it doesn't lock you in forever.  In 2016 some big pitching guns are available in free agency.  And you can always let Clay/Porcello go in 2015 (if you want) to pursue guys like Cueto or whomever.  
 
I think that rotation could be very solid, and very attainable, and it would give the Sox, with their improved offense, a legit shot at winning most every time out.  Over the long haul, that's a very nice team.

I agree with this approach but would include Liriano instead of McCarthy. Need at least one Lefty.
This would be a continuation of the strategy they employed prior to 2013 bringing in Vic and Nap etc.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If Lester goes then you would need to flip Cespedes for whatever we can get and use that package and other pieces for Hamels. That's really the only thing that can save them from a PR nightmare.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

I really can't envision a scenario where the Sox don't walk away with two top of the rotation starters this winter ... especially after spending the money on Hanley and Pablo.

I'd like Lester back of course, but signing Scherzer and trading for Hamels is starting to become more appealing to me.

If the Sox could sign Lester and trade for Hamels I see no financial reason they couldn't get Scherzer instead.

Really I just want no part of Shields or Porcello as the answers to the rotation holes.

 

[C4CRVT]

If you believe in Steamer projections, the drop in production from (Lester and Hamels) to (Sheilds and Porcello) is 0.4 WAR.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

I really can't envision a scenario where the Sox don't walk away with two top of the rotation starters this winter ... especially after spending the money on Hanley and Pablo.

I'd like Lester back of course, but signing Scherzer and trading for Hamels is starting to become more appealing to me.

If the Sox could sign Lester and trade for Hamels I see no financial reason they couldn't get Scherzer instead.

Really I just want no part of Shields or Porcello as the answers to the rotation holes.

 
Kind of boxing yourself in, aren't you? How are they going to sign Scherzer if they don't want to pony up for what Lester is going to cost? And are you ready to trade Bogaerts or Betts for Hamels? If so, fine.But many people don't want to do that, so those two doors are essentially closed. Shields is not sexy, but can be pretty god, and you can find other pitchers.
 
Signing Hanley and Sandoval didn't provide any type of passport to silliness. If anything (I'm assuming here that they have a budget), it puts more pressure to spend the rest of the money well.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

If the Sox could sign Lester and trade for Hamels I see no financial reason they couldn't get Scherzer instead.

Really I just want no part of Shields or Porcello as the answers to the rotation holes.

As of now, several teams have said that Amaro's asking price for Hamels is ridiculous.  There have also been GMs and reporters who have said that Amaro believes he can get MORE from the Red Sox if Lester signs somewhere else.  I would not plan on striking a deal for Hamels AT ALL because of Amaro.
 
NJ Sox Fan - I like Porcello a lot.  Ground ball pitcher who is very very solid.  Plus, he's from NJ!
 
Re: Greinke to the Tigers - their farm system is so barren, I don't think they have anyone the Dodgers would be interested in.  Steven Moya is their #1 prospect and he has one of the worst bb/k rates you'll ever see and many people don't think he'll cut it in the Bigs.  No way they can put together a package to land him.

 

[Shore Thing]

If you believe in Steamer projections, the drop in production from (Lester and Hammels) to (Sheilds and Porcello) is 0.4 WAR.

 
I don't want to derail the topic, but I keep seeing multiple references to Steamer on the main board as gospel for future projections.  I have my doubts about the projections (their website doesn't seem to share much about the system).  If they are so believable, (Shields + Porcello) over (Lester + Hammels) is a complete no brainer. 

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

 
Kind of boxing yourself in, aren't you? How are they going to sign Scherzer if they don't want to pony up for what Lester is going to cost? And are you ready to trade Bogaerts or Betts for Hamels? If so, fine.But many people don't want to do that, so those two doors are essentially closed. Shields is not sexy, but can be pretty god, and you can find other pitchers.
 
Signing Hanley and Sandoval didn't provide any type of passport to silliness. If anything (I'm assuming here that they have a budget), it puts more pressure to spend the rest of the money well.

I didn't mean that they couldn't afford Lester so would then sign Scherzer. I'm saying that at some point paying Lester x has to be a less attractive option than paying Scherzer y, no?

As for X and Betts, I'd be fine trading one one the other, but not both for Hamels.

 

[ivanvamp]

The four young guns I do not want to trade are Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, and Owens.  That still leaves the Sox with a large stable of young tradable commodities.  Maybe they can't get Hamels, but they should be able to sign a good pitcher (Shields?) and trade for two other quality starters with these chips plus Cespedes.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

As of now, several teams have said that Amaro's asking price for Hamels is ridiculous.  There have also been GMs and reporters who have said that Amaro believes he can get MORE from the Red Sox if Lester signs somewhere else.  I would not plan on striking a deal for Hamels AT ALL because of Amaro.
 
NJ Sox Fan - I like Porcello a lot.  Ground ball pitcher who is very very solid.  Plus, he's from NJ!
 
Re: Greinke to the Tigers - their farm system is so barren, I don't think they have anyone the Dodgers would be interested in.  Steven Moya is their #1 prospect and he has one of the worst bb/k rates you'll ever see and many people don't think he'll cut it in the Bigs.  No way they can put together a package to land him.

I know Amaro is an unreasonable dolt, and if his demands for Hamels are insane I certainly wouldn't advocate over paying for him.

Porcello is an ok option IF they actually sign a front of the rotation starter. To me, he is not there [yet].

 

[smastroyin]

Steamer works by regressing a bunch of components to create what are essentially trendlines to create projections based on part performance.

 

[OnWisc]

I know Amaro is an unreasonable dolt, and if his demands for Hamels are insane I certainly wouldn't advocate over paying for him.

You just did.
 

As for X and Betts, I'd be fine trading one one the other, but not both for Hamels.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

You just did.
 

I don't think giving up one of X/Betts is that unreasonable for Hamels, but to each his own.

 

[glennhoffmania]

This Hamels idea keeps going round and round in a big circle.  If (and I know it's a big if) Lester signs elsewhere for 6/150, that means the Sox don't think he's worth $25m per year for 6 years.  Hamels would cost $22m per year for 5 years, or $40m less over a 6 year period.  If Lester isn't worth $150m, why in the world would Hamels be worth $110m plus a couple of top prospects plus other pieces?  I still haven't seen any argument that makes this sound at all reasonable.  They're not going to get Hamels for Cespedes and a B prospect, or multiple non-elite prospects.  It just ain't happening.
 
I think the Ben has shown during his tenure that he's a pretty smart GM who is very good at putting values on assets.  I can't imagine he would lose a bidding war for Lester (unless the bids reach ridiculous levels) and then turn around and pay as much or more in value for Hamels.

 

[foulkehampshire]

I don't think giving up one of X/Betts is that unreasonable for Hamels, but to each his own.

 
I don't see the reasoning behind trading a prospect like X/Betts for Cole Hamels considering the following.
1) He's due considerable money
2) He's signed until 2018+ the option year, which would certainly be conditional upon trading for him.
 
If you're going to trade Betts/X for Cole Hamels who's under contract until for 5/112 mil, why not just pony up a few couple more years (and maybe a few more mil per season) for Scherzer or Lester? At least they're AL proven, and one would come without draft compensation.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

 
I don't see the reasoning behind trading a prospect like X/Betts for Cole Hamels considering the following.
1) He's due considerable money
2) He's signed until 2018+ the option year, which would certainly be conditional upon trading for him.
 
If you're going to trade Betts/X for Cole Hamels who's under contract until for 5/112 mil, why not just pony up a few couple more years (and maybe a few more mil per season) for Scherzer or Lester? At least they're AL proven, and one would come without draft compensation.

Fair point.

 

[mr_smith02]

This Hamels idea keeps going round and round in a big circle.  If (and I know it's a big if) Lester signs elsewhere for 6/150, that means the Sox don't think he's worth $25m per year for 6 years.  Hamels would cost $22m per year for 5 years, or $40m less over a 6 year period.  If Lester isn't worth $150m, why in the world would Hamels be worth $110m plus a couple of top prospects plus other pieces?  I still haven't seen any argument that makes this sound at all reasonable.  They're not going to get Hamels for Cespedes and a B prospect, or multiple non-elite prospects.  It just ain't happening.
 
I think the Ben has shown during his tenure that he's a pretty smart GM who is very good at putting values on assets.  I can't imagine he would lose a bidding war for Lester (unless the bids reach ridiculous levels) and then turn around and pay as much or more in value for Hamels.

Totally agree with this assertion.  Furthermore, as the length and cost of the Lester deal continues to increase the notion of overpaying must be honestly weighed.  Moving on to a couple pitchers on the next tier, who may be obtainable with the money saved by not overpaying Lester, could very well be Ben's shrewdest move at this point.  Just because the market says Lester is worth $25 million per year does not make it so.  Sometimes you cannot afford the nicest car on the lot, but you could still get some pretty decent cars for the money your are willing and able to spend.
 
With each passing Tweet this is feeling more and more like an overpay this board will be not too happy with in a few years.

 

[ivanvamp]

Totally agree with this assertion.  Furthermore, as the length and cost of the Lester deal continues to increase the notion of overpaying must be honestly weighed.  Moving on to a couple pitchers on the next tier, who may be obtainable with the money saved by not overpaying Lester, could very well be Ben's shrewdest move at this point.  Just because the market says Lester is worth $25 million per year does not make it so.  Sometimes you cannot afford the nicest car on the lot, but you could still get some pretty decent cars for the money your are willing and able to spend.
 
With each passing Tweet this is feeling more and more like an overpay this board will be not too happy with in a few years.

 
May be true.  But within a few years, hopefully the Sox will have a bunch of young stud pitchers performing as #2 or #3 starters, being paid the league minimum.  So you may end up with this rotation in 2018:
 
Lester - $26 million
Porcello - $17 million (re-signed after we trade for him this offseason)
Kelly - $12 million (arbitration)
Owens - $500k
Rodriguez - $500k
 
That's a starting rotation that costs $56 million - an average of $11 million per starter.  By 2018, that won't really be that expensive.

 

[H78]

Totally agree with this assertion.  Furthermore, as the length and cost of the Lester deal continues to increase the notion of overpaying must be honestly weighed.  Moving on to a couple pitchers on the next tier, who may be obtainable with the money saved by not overpaying Lester, could very well be Ben's shrewdest move at this point.  Just because the market says Lester is worth $25 million per year does not make it so.  Sometimes you cannot afford the nicest car on the lot, but you could still get some pretty decent cars for the money your are willing and able to spend.
 
With each passing Tweet this is feeling more and more like an overpay this board will be not too happy with in a few years.

 
Agreed. Not to mention, it could be argued that the Phils would have a whole lot of additional negotiating power if Lester signs elsewhere and then the Sox turn to them for Hamels. If an ace left handed pitcher is what the Sox want, and the only ace left-hander on the market is gone, the Phillies can and will ask for a king's ransom from the Red Sox for Hamels.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Agreed. Not to mention, it could be argued that the Phils would have a whole lot of additional negotiating power if Lester signs elsewhere and then the Sox turn to them for Hamels. If an ace left handed pitcher is what the Sox want, and the only ace left-hander on the market is gone, the Phillies can and will ask for a king's ransom from the Red Sox for Hamels.

 
I hope the Sox are smart enough not to give it then.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

 
May be true.  But within a few years, hopefully the Sox will have a bunch of young stud pitchers performing as #2 or #3 starters, being paid the league minimum.  So you may end up with this rotation in 2018:
 
Lester - $26 million
Porcello - $17 million (re-signed after we trade for him this offseason)
Kelly - $12 million (arbitration)
Owens - $500k
Rodriguez - $500k
 
That's a starting rotation that costs $56 million - an average of $11 million per starter.  By 2018, that won't really be that expensive.

Will Owens and Rodriguez still earn only $500k in 2018?  Kelly will still be at $12M?  Porcello at $17M?
 
I'm not opposed to putting out a rotation similar to that but I think your numbers are a bit low (other than Lester) and we're hoping that three of those five really live up to their potential and that Lester is still performing where we'd like going into the back half of his new contract.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Will Owens and Rodriguez still earn only $500k in 2018?  Kelly will still be at $12M?  Porcello at $17M?
 
I'm not opposed to putting out a rotation similar to that but I think your numbers are a bit low (other than Lester) and we're hoping that three of those five really live up to their potential and that Lester is still performing where we'd like going into the back half of his new contract.

 
To your questions:
 
1) It won't be significantly more than that, unless the ML minimum is raised or they are extended before then. (This is assuming that neither of them pitches enough in 2015 to accumulate significant service time.)
2) Well, if he costs more than that in third-year arb, that will mean that he's been really good, which will be a nice problem to have.
3) ivanvamp is hypothesizing that we will wrap Porcello up for a long-term deal with a $17M AAV after trading for him, which again will mean that he's been really good.

 

[IdiotKicker]

Signing Lester at this point as well as trading 1+ high-level prospects for Hamels strikes me as unlikely. Lester is likely to be more than the 6/130 that has been bandied about as an early offer. If that is the case, you are now moving from Lester generating surplus value in any year, to likely being a net value suck. Yes, he will produce, but likely at a cost above what he actually produces. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as for high-level production, you do sometimes need to overpay just because there is a scarcity of resources in those top levels.
 
However, if this is the case, it also means that you have to be prepared to generate additional surplus value elsewhere. That is not accomplished by trading multiple high-level prospects for additional high-salary players. If the front office is looking for an ideal roster to construct next year, they may indeed bring on a second pitcher in addition to Lester, but I do not believe it should be through a trade of high-level prospects due to what I just outlined.

 

[ivanvamp]

Will Owens and Rodriguez still earn only $500k in 2018?  Kelly will still be at $12M?  Porcello at $17M?
 
I'm not opposed to putting out a rotation similar to that but I think your numbers are a bit low (other than Lester) and we're hoping that three of those five really live up to their potential and that Lester is still performing where we'd like going into the back half of his new contract.

 
Of course I said "hopefully" but we never know how it will turn out.  I think the beauty of the Sox having all this solid pitching depth is that it's likely that *someone* will reach his potential.  So maybe it won't be Owens and Rodriguez.  Maybe it will be Webster and RDLR.  

 

[OnWisc]

Agreed. Not to mention, it could be argued that the Phils would have a whole lot of additional negotiating power if Lester signs elsewhere and then the Sox turn to them for Hamels. If an ace left handed pitcher is what the Sox want, and the only ace left-hander on the market is gone, the Phillies can and will ask for a king's ransom from the Red Sox for Hamels.

I imagine Ben is taking all this into consideration. He's not going to get beat out for Lester, see the sticker price on Hamels, and suddenly wish he had made a better offer to Jon.

If the Red Sox get beat on Lester, it's because his price climbed too high. Hamel's price is already too high for Boston, and if it increases further once Lester signs elsewhere, then it's that much more unlikely that the Red Sox will deal for him.

 

[curly2]

The four young guns I do not want to trade are Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, and Owens.  That still leaves the Sox with a large stable of young tradable commodities.

I don't think it's that big a stable. For "top" prospects I think that leaves Rodriguez, Margot and Devers, and the last two are years away, so a team trading for them would have to commit to a long rebuild.

Marrero, Johnson, Barnes and Cecchini are certainly "tradeable" but teams are all going to ask for the four guys you mentioned, plus Rodriguez.

 

[soxhop411]

According to multiple sources of teams connected to the negotiations, the Dodgers are a late entrant into the sweepstakes, with both serious interest in the top left-hander on the market and the resources to make a hard, late charge. One source believed that the Dodgers may have already made an offer. Another was unsure of whether an offer was on the table, but felt that Los Angeles was prepared to pounce late and blow away the offers that had been made to date.

http://m.weei.com//sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/12/04/game-changer-what-dodgers-interest-jon-lester-

 

[Sprowl]

I don't think it's that big a stable. For "top" prospects I think that leaves Rodriguez, Margot and Devers, and the last two are years away, so a team trading for them would have to commit to a long rebuild.

Marrero, Johnson, Barnes and Cecchini are certainly "tradeable" but teams are all going to ask for the four guys you mentioned, plus Rodriguez.

 
I think the list of tradable prospects is a little longer, especially in young pitchers: like Barnes and Johnson, Webster, de la Rosa and Ranaudo have value as throw-ins, although probably not as centerpieces, if the Red Sox pursue quantity-for-quality trades.
 
A likely package: Cespedes + young pitcher other than Owens or Rodriguez + infielder (one of Marrero, Cecchini, Coyle or Middlebrooks).

 

[curly2]

I actually like Johnson a lot and hope he stays. I think he's got a good chance to exceed expectations. I think he's been slapped with the label of "No. 4 or 5 starter" so he may not be a major piece.
 
I also think there's still a chance for Barnes to be good, but I don't think his value is particularly high right now.
 
I was thinking more about "centerpieces" and think the Sox potentially have five, and most people (wisely) are taking four of them off the table.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I agree with this approach but would include Liriano instead of McCarthy. Need at least one Lefty.
This would be a continuation of the strategy they employed prior to 2013 bringing in Vic and Nap etc.

I'd go for both Liriano and McCarthy, with the expectation that one hedges the risk of the other. Liriano-Porcello-Buchholz-McCathy-Kelly is not a deeply exciting rotation but it's pretty good, has some upside and wouldn't require the team to go beyond 4 years with anyone or spend any major prospects to pull off. It's not that far off from the rotation the Royals took to the series and you never know, maybe Owens or Rodriguez steps up to a Yordano Ventura level.

Avoiding tge "#1 Starter" premium the new market efficiency?

 

[TomRicardo]

I'd go for both Liriano and McCarthy, with the expectation that one hedges the risk of the other. Liriano-Porcello-Buchholz-McCathy-Kelly is not a deeply exciting rotation but it's pretty good, has some upside and wouldn't require the team to go beyond 4 years with anyone or spend any major prospects to pull off. It's not that far off from the rotation the Royals took to the series and you never know, maybe Owens or Rodriguez steps up to a Yordano Ventura level.

Avoiding tge "#1 Starter" premium the new market efficiency?

 
 
When was the last time a team won without a real frontline starter?  2011 Cardinals had a good rotation with no real ace (Carpenter had a good but not great year).  Other than that I don't see a team winning without a top flight pitcher or two since 2004.

 

[joe dokes]

Avoiding tge "#1 Starter" premium the new market efficiency?
 

Or at least limiting its reach.
 
 

 
 
When was the last time a team won without a real frontline starter?  2011 Cardinals had a good rotation with no real ace (Carpenter had a good but not great year).  Other than that I don't see a team winning without a top flight pitcher or two since 2004.

 
I think those lables are of limited utility.  Until the playoffs, would Lester's 2013 be considered the work of a "front-line starter"?  A "really good pitcher"?

 

[moondog80]

 
 
When was the last time a team won without a real frontline starter?  2011 Cardinals had a good rotation with no real ace (Carpenter had a good but not great year).  Other than that I don't see a team winning without a top flight pitcher or two since 2004.

 
Does James Shields count?  I know the Royals didn't win, but losing by 1 run in game 7 is enough for me to believe it's not a deal breaker.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
 
When was the last time a team won without a real frontline starter?  2011 Cardinals had a good rotation with no real ace (Carpenter had a good but not great year).  Other than that I don't see a team winning without a top flight pitcher or two since 2004.

 
To Joe's point, I think a more relevant analysis would be to look at world series teams rotations heading into the season.  After they win the world series it's much more likely a "frontline starter" would have emerged. 

 

[snowmanny]

Or at least limiting its reach.
 
I think those lables are of limited utility.  Until the playoffs, would Lester's 2013 be considered the
work of a "front-line starter"?  A "really good
pitcher"?

I would say he has been a really really good pitcher since July 13, 2013. After that he had a 2.56 ERA the rest of the way (edit: I mean the rest of the 2013 regular season. He
improved in the playoffs of course). He had a stretch of about 10-11 starts in the middle of the 2013 season during which he wasn't very good.

 

[manny]

I don't really understand this "late entrant" angle to the Lester free agency.  The Dodgers obviously knew he was going to be a free agent and did their homework.  Why wait?  Is the idea to come in late after other offers are already in, top them, and hope to sign him quickly?  Isn't there a rather significant risk that he signs before your late push?  Why would you risk that for such an important investment?
 
Or, is there a possibility that they were involved all along and the media only found out recently?

 

[Devizier]

 
I don't want to derail the topic, but I keep seeing multiple references to Steamer on the main board as gospel for future projections.  I have my doubts about the projections (their website doesn't seem to share much about the system).  If they are so believable, (Shields + Porcello) over (Lester + Hammels) is a complete no brainer. 

 
Steamer is pretty straightforward, but their main advantage is getting the projections out early, before the free agency period.

 

[Sprowl]

Or at least limiting its reach.
 
I think those lables are of limited utility.  Until the playoffs, would Lester's 2013 be considered the work of a "front-line starter"?  A "really good pitcher"?

 
We (ie, multiple midseason 2013 SoSH threads) used to characterize the 2013 Red Sox as having three 1.5 starters -- that none of Lester, Lackey or Buchholz really qualified as an ace, but collectively the team had a very strong front three.
 
Then Buchholz got hurt and Lester went on an 18-month tear, and now Lester is the front-line starter the team needs... :unsure2:

 

[FredCDobbs]

I don't really understand this "late entrant" angle to the Lester free agency.  The Dodgers obviously knew he was going to be a free agent and did their homework.  Why wait?  Is the idea to come in late after other offers are already in, top them, and hope to sign him quickly?  Isn't there a rather significant risk that he signs before your late push?  Why would you risk that for such an important investment?
 

 
Yet it seems to happen all the time.  I obviously don't know for sure, but the Tigers sure seemed to wake up one day and say "What the hell!" on Prince Fielder.  Same for the Angels with Hamilton.  Just as in normal life, people panic, make bad decisions, get greedy, just say screw it, etc.  
 
Or maybe the idea of letting Grienke walk and replacing him with Lester just occurred to someone the other day.

 

[nattysez]

This is a weird, repetitive article from Heyman where he sells the Giants as real players for Lester.
 

The Giants easily have the wherewithal to sign Lester. ...
The Giants are a very attractive option indeed....
Lester's good friend from Atlanta, veteran Giants pitcher Tim Hudson, wasn't able to join the Giants' caravan Monday, but he called later to chat up his buddy, who has one helluva decision on his hands. The Giants have a very convincing case to make, and almost no team knows pitching like them. Their entry and attention at the least has to be flattering considering their obvious expertise.
What's more, there's little doubt the Giants mean business. While they've checked in on third basemen, outfielders and others, their real focus is clearly on Lester now.
 

 

[OnWisc]

Yet it seems to happen all the time.  I obviously don't know for sure, but the Tigers sure seemed to wake up one day and say "What the hell!" on Prince Fielder.  Same for the Angels with Hamilton.  Just as in normal life, people panic, make bad decisions, get greedy, just say screw it, etc.  
 
Or maybe the idea of letting Grienke walk and replacing him with Lester just occurred to someone the other day.

The Tigers woke up one day and sometime later that day V-Mart tore his ACL.

 

[soxhop411]

“@ScottLauber: Ortiz on Lester: ”He cares about that city (Boston). He was devastated when he got traded. I can personally tell you that. (MORE)“ #RedSox”

 

[soxhop411]

“@ScottLauber: ”But this is business, and he understands that. So now it’s time for us to man up and try to make the guy happy.“ -Ortiz on Lester #RedSox”

 

[Rasputin]

I don't really understand this "late entrant" angle to the Lester free agency.  The Dodgers obviously knew he was going to be a free agent and did their homework.  Why wait?  Is the idea to come in late after other offers are already in, top them, and hope to sign him quickly?  Isn't there a rather significant risk that he signs before your late push?  Why would you risk that for such an important investment?
 
Or, is there a possibility that they were involved all along and the media only found out recently?

 
The only thing that has ever really made sense to me is that there were some trade discussions and the team came to the conclusion that they could trade X if they found a free agent replacement in Y.
 
That, or it just happened that the story didn't reach the right writers that the team was interested.

 

[KillerBs]

Perfect intervention from Papi there at a crucial moment.
 
Are we still stuck on 6/130 lagging behind the Cubs offer? Of course, no one knows what's going on but I certainly hope/expect us to go higher than that, 6/144, 6/150 at least. Topping out at 6/130 looks like putting as much $ as possible on the table while ensuring you fall short.
 
I am hoping in the end Lester will think it all thru and conclude there is nowhere else he would rather be next April than at Fenway taking the field with Pedey et al. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

Perfect intervention from Papi there at a crucial moment.

 

Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 13m13 minutes ago


 
Ortiz said he has not spoken to Lester recently but believes the lefty knows he feels.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Perfect intervention from Papi there at a crucial moment.
 
Are we still stuck on 6/130 lagging behind the Cubs offer? Of course, no one knows what's going on but I certainly hope/expect us to go higher than that, 6/144, 6/150 at least. Topping out at 6/130 looks like putting as much $ as possible on the table while ensuring you fall short.
 
I am hoping in the end Lester will think it all thru and conclude there is nowhere else he would rather be next April than at Fenway taking the field with Pedey et al. 

Or it's assigning a value range to a player and offering the high end of that value, hoping it's enough, while understanding that it might not be.  Seriously, not every move they make has draconian ulterior motives.  This is a business deal for both sides.

 

[soxhop411]

“@pgammo: All I know:Andrew Friedman has long admired Jon Lester, Farham Zaidi helped trade for him, Josh Byrnes knows him well, Greinke opts after…”

“@pgammo: @pgammo 2015, Dodgers feel they need another starter to win it all and when Bostonians talk ”hometown discount“ it is insulting to Lester…”

 

[soxhop411]

“@pgammo: @pgammo They offered him less than half his market value, traded him…how about ”Fenway Overpay“ for the two rings and the $$$ he made’em?”