Should the Red Sox trade Lester?

[OttoC]

You do know that the reason the trade is celebrated because of the financial flexibility it brought, right? Not the prospects. Giving Ben crap about any part of that trade is astounding. 

And that financial flexibility has been put to great use.

 

[MakMan44]

And that financial flexibility has been put to great use.

I'd say so. 

 

[Doctor G]

I don't see how they are so afraid of Lester breaking down in his mid thirties. He is built like Clemens from the waist down. His repertoire FB, cutter primarily didn't wreck Rivera's arm.
 
There are a lot of GM s eagerly awaiting a big mistake by John Henry and LL, which will be blamed on baseball ops and Ben Cherington.
 
If signing Lester proves to be a mistake it is a mistake that a hell of a lot of teams are eagerly waiting the chance to make.

 

[Future Sox Doc]

I don't see how they are so afraid of Lester breaking down in his mid thirties. He is built like Clemens from the waist down. His repertoire FB, cutter primarily didn't wreck Rivera's arm.
 
There are a lot of GM s eagerly awaiting a big mistake by John Henry and LL, which will be blamed on baseball ops and Ben Cherington.
 
If signing Lester proves to be a mistake it is a mistake that a hell of a lot of teams are eagerly waiting the chance to make.

 
Luckily he isn't built like Clemens from the shoulders up.  He also doesn't have, the, ahem, "resources" that Clemens had available to him. 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

If signing Lester proves to be a mistake it is a mistake that a hell of a lot of teams are eagerly waiting the chance to make.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner's_curse

 

[OttoC]

I'd say so. 

 
You definitely have my vote for future GM.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I hate the argument that the Sox can't sign Lester in the offseason. Why? They are a big market club with the highest ticket prices in baseball. If they want to sign him he will be here. If not then I'm sure baseball ops has a plan. I don't think you're going to see a team full of prospects next year. Some of those will be used to compliment the current core by trading for vets. Boston will use the money this offseason to make competitive offers for Lester Koji and Miller even if they trade them. I trust the front office to do this.

 

[MakMan44]

 
You definitely have my vote for future GM.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that the finical flexibility is a huge reason they won the WS last year?  

 

[OttoC]

So you're just going to ignore the fact that the finical flexibility is a huge reason they won the WS last year?  

 
Franky, I think there was a great deal of luck involved.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Franky, I think there was a great deal of luck involved.

There's always skill, and there's always luck. I wonder if they can really duplicate what they did with their flexibility in a predictable way. I mean Victorino worked last year but not this year. Peavy may or may not have made The Difference last year but he was an overpaid stiff this year. Drew was a good signing for 2013 and a waste of money this year. Lester and Uehara played huge roles in 2013 are just as good this year and likely will be gone in 2015. It's going to be a hell of a rabbit they pull if they can put together a first place team next year but yes, they've done it before.

 

[rodderick]

 
Franky, I think there was a great deal of luck involved.

 
There's a great deal of luck involved for any team that wins the WS, because that's baseball for you in small sample sizes. Still doesn't explain how they won 97 games, though.

 

[Reverend]

 
There's a great deal of luck involved for any team that wins the WS, because that's baseball for you in small sample sizes. Still doesn't explain how they won 97 games, though.

 
Exactly. Plus baseball is a game where there is tons of parity, everyone's trying to get an edge, and is therefore played on the margins. A .560 winning pct puts a team in first in 5 of the 6 divisions right now.
 
To win it all, you have to be good and lucky. So for any championship team, I take the luck as a given, and then figure they're still pretty good.

 

[mabrowndog]

Grant Bisbee, who blogs about the Dodgers' arch-rivals for the McCovey Chronicles, has a somewhat tongue-in-cheek look at the rumor that just will not go away. (This in response to his SB Nation colleague and Over The Monster author Marc Normandin's companion piece, Trading Jon Lester for Matt Kemp doesn't make sense). Anyway, I give you...
 
Trading Matt Kemp for Jon Lester makes all kinds of sense
 

...We have a sexy rumor that doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface. Gordon Edes reported that the Red Sox were considering a deal for Kemp that would include Jon Lester. Nick Cafardo tweeted there weren't any major talks, but that doesn't mean there aren't discussions. Which means it's time to figure out what the hell the Red Sox might be thinking in a segment I like to call: "What the hell are the Red Sox thinking?"

Assume the injuries are both responsible for the decline and unlikely to linger
 
The first part is easy. Yes, the injuries are responsible for turning a lightning bolt into a flickering night light, and if the injuries are gone, the player will return. The second part, the one about lingering, is much harder to ignore. A list of maladies that have put Kemp on the DL or required offseason surgery since his MVP-caliber season:

• Hamstring strain
• Hamstring strain
• Detached labrum
• Hamstring strain
• AC joint debridement
• Microfracture surgery on left ankle

Again, that's just since 2012.

The Dodgers will eat a lot of money
 
The Red Sox have to decide what kind of contract would make Kemp a good idea, then. Matt Kemp at the minimum salary is something every team would jump at, whereas Matt Kemp at $107 million over the next five years is poison. The trick is finding where the practical midpoint is. If the Dodgers ate $57 million, to pull a number from my backside, that means Kemp would essentially be on a five year, $50 million deal for the Red Sox. Is his potential as a left fielder or DH worth the gamble at that price?
 
Maybe. $10 million for an almost-30 player suffering from a crumbling everything would still make me nervous. His numbers over his last 162 games, home and road, are tempting:
 
Home: 269 AB, .257/.305/.387, 6 HR
Road: 310 AB, .300/.372/.455. 8 HR
 
You can see the attraction. Get him out of Dodger Stadium, watch him blossom. What if the Dodgers will eat $60 million? What about $80 million? Keep sliding that thing to the right, and you'll eventually find a gamble worth taking.

Jon Lester is somehow the perfect trade chip
 
The Dodgers have repeatedly indicated they don't want to deal their top prospects -- Pederson, Corey Seager, and Julio Urias -- at the deadline. Which means they aren't getting a top-shelf starting pitcher. Except they know how nice it would be to slot a pitcher like David Price or Lester between Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke for a postseason series. But they won't trade Pederson, Seager, or Urias. Which means they aren't getting a top-shelf starting pitcher. Except they know how nice it would be to ...

Here's a way, then. All it takes is money and ... hold on, the Dodgers are checking their account and ... yes, yes, they have money. They can keep the prospects everyone else covets, and they can still get the deadline ace to make a Rotation of Postseason Doom. All they have to do is turn Matt Kemp from a contract disaster into a smart gamble for another team. With money. They have money.
 
It makes a touch less sense from the perspective of the Red Sox, considering they can get shiny prospects from elsewhere for Lester, but it still makes a little sense. There's a strong chance that Kemp alone outperforms an entire prospect haul for Lester over the next three or four years, when the Red Sox are ostensibly hoping to contend. Getting him at a hyper-reduced rate would almost make him like a majors-ready prospect, in a perverse way. The value of a prospect isn't necessarily the hope that they'll turn into an All-Star, but that they'll be valuable to a major league roster before they're expensive, allowing the team to spend more on the rest of the roster.
 
Get the Dodgers to throw in a couple of non-troika prospects, and the Red Sox would/could/should be quite interested in that deal. A pending free agent ace like Lester isn't just one of the possible ways to make the Dodgers eat enough of Kemp's salary to make him worthwhile; it might be the only way.

 

[nattysez]

Unless the team is 100% convinced they can trade him now and re-sign him in the off-season, I really don't understand why they aren't meeting his price now.  5/$110 seems pretty reasonable.
 
 

The Red Sox, major league sources said on Monday, have been informed what kind of contract lefthander Jon Lester is seeking and that has coincided with the team putting their ace on the trade market.
 
That could be an indication the team has little desire to sign Lester despite public comments suggesting otherwise.
 
Lester is seeking what was described as a “competitive offer consistent with the market” but nothing that would be considered precedent setting.
 
The Red Sox made Lester a low-ball offer of four years and $70 million in spring training was swiftly rejected. The sides have since said negotiations were tabled until after the season.
 
A contract that reflects the market value for Lester would be approximately $22-$24 million a year over five or six years. Given his oft-stated desire to stay in Boston, Lester could conceivably take less.
 

http://live.boston.com/Event/2014_Red_Sox_season_updates/122749306

 

[Brianish]

If all of that is true, it sounds like it means one of two things. Either: 
 
A: The Sox are absolutely determined not to meet that price for Lester and are shopping him to get some value or
 
B: The Sox are convinced that they can/comfortable that they will turn around and offer a deal that he will take in the fall and are shopping him to get some prospects at little to no risk. 
 
So basically, what we all figured.

 

[RedOctober3829]

https://twitter.com/joelsherman1/status/493891753918074882

 

[bosockboy]

Hamels certainly muddies the waters as he is way more than a rental.

 

[threecy]

The Red Sox may be already counting on getting either a draft pick or elite prospect out of Lester (ie loss to FA, trade), so perhaps they're further deducting that value from what they're willing to pay him for a home town discount extension.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Just for shits and giggles, let's say the Red Sox were deep into the hunt for a division title - and Detroit (out of it) was willing to rent Scherzer.
 
What would you be willing to give up for that rental?
 
I ask, because the answer should be roughly equivalent for the Sox as any other team's offer for Lester. For example, I think anyone looking for Pederson or Seager would need to agree the Sox would give up Bogaerts or Betts for Scherzer's 3 months.
 
What would you give up for a Scherzer rental if the Red Sox were strong contenders?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

2013 Bradley and Barnes (it's hard to remember, but Barnes was a consensus top-50 prospect heading into 2013) would be very comparable to 2014 Pederson and Seager in terms of consensus ranking.
 
So, would the Sox have traded Bradley and Barnes for a Scherzer rental at last year's deadline?
 
EDIT: I realize Scherzer would not have been a rental at last year's deadline. But just say he was.

 

[snowmanny]

I don't think it's a fair comparison, though. The Sox just won the WS last year, there's less urgency on the part of the fan base and esp. the oganization.

Right. If you are the Pirates and you haven't won a playoff series in 35 years you might be inclined to be slightly more opportunistic.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Right. If you are the Pirates and you haven't won a playoff series in 35 years you might be inclined to be slightly more opportunistic.

Unfortunately, Neal Huntington is pretty good at his job, and he's a patient man.  I doubt he deviates from his plan and goes all-in unless he can convince himself Lester puts them over the top.  The fans, of course, might feel otherwise.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

At this point, should change the poll:
 
What will the Sox get for Lester?
 
Today, 04:42 PM
 

Joe McDonald ‏@ESPNJoeyMac  1m
The likelihood the Red Sox trade Lester is becoming more of a possibility, because the demand for his services has skyrocketed, per source.
 

 

[Bongorific]

The only way I would trade him is if I know for certain I can sign him in the offseason.

I don't see how they sign him in the offseason for anything less than 6/144 at this point.

I'm very curious what Farrell's opinion is. He was the one that was adamant about not giving up Lester for Johan when the rumors were the Sox wouldn't do Buchholz but may do Lester. Obviously that was at a much different point in Lester's career.

I understand the FO's thinking regarding 30 year old free agents. But this isn't giving a 32 year old Pujols a 10 year deal. If they could have signed Lester for 5/125 during the off season, and we don't know if they could, than I think that was the move to make. Otherwise, I don't know who is starting game 1 of a playoff series in 2014 or 2015 while Pedroia and Ortiz are still elite.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Unfortunately, Neal Huntington is pretty good at his job, and he's a patient man.  I doubt he deviates from his plan and goes all-in unless he can convince himself Lester puts them over the top.  The fans, of course, might feel otherwise.

Lester very well could. That is why Pittsburgh has emerged as a legit threat.

 

[mauf]

Lester very well could. That is why Pittsburgh has emerged as a legit threat.

The Pirates are in 3rd place, 2 games behind the Brewers and half a game behind the Cards. The Pirates have the worst Pythagorean record of the 3 teams, but by BP third-order wins, there hasn't been a meaningful difference between the teams to date.

Could replacing their 5th starter with Lester move the needle for any of those teams? Of course. But 12 starts are only worth so much -- I can't see how acquiring Lester would make the Pirates better than an even-money bet to win the division. I'd be surprised to see a disciplined GM like Huntington make that move. The Brewers seem like a more likely candidate, if a couple of the potential buyers with more attractive prospects decide to pass.

 

[67WasBest]

The Pirates are in 3rd place, 2 games behind the Brewers and half a game behind the Cards. The Pirates have the worst Pythagorean record of the 3 teams, but by BP third-order wins, there hasn't been a meaningful difference between the teams to date.

Could replacing their 5th starter with Lester move the needle for any of those teams? Of course. But 12 starts are only worth so much -- I can't see how acquiring Lester would make the Pirates better than an even-money bet to win the division. I'd be surprised to see a disciplined GM like Huntington make that move. The Brewers seem like a more likely candidate, if a couple of the potential buyers with more attractive prospects decide to pass.

It doesn't have to be simply Lester in a deal.  What if we're missing the target by focusing on Bell and Meadows; and instead it's Polanco in the deal? 
 
Polanco is a better near term fit for the Sox and he had a top 15 ranking in most lists pre-season.  For Pittsburgh to trade him would require a RF in return.  To play this scenario out, how about Lester, Miller and a subsidized Victorino for Polanco, Meadows and Kingham.  This would fit with Eades tweet earlier that Bell was not in the deal.  It would also address the Huntington question, "does this move the needle enough in our favor to pull the trigger?"  In the end, the Pirates would have greatly enhanced their odds of winning in 2014, without jeopardizing 2015.  They will have retained their top two pitching prospects, and Josh Bell, who would take over for Victorino in RF in 2016.  The talent they'd be trading is high, but it is from positions where the Pirates are well stocked  The Sox would have added three top 50 talents.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

The only way I would trade him is if I know for certain I can sign him in the offseason.

 
Suppose you don't know that. Why do you want to keep him? He's about to be a FA anyway.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

No one...NO ONE knows if they can sign a free agent in the offseason. The only way that works is a sign-and-trade.
 
(moved)

 

[MakMan44]

It doesn't have to be simply Lester in a deal.  What if we're missing the target by focusing on Bell and Meadows; and instead it's Polanco in the deal? 
 
Polanco is a better near term fit for the Sox and he had a top 15 ranking in most lists pre-season.  For Pittsburgh to trade him would require a RF in return.  To play this scenario out, how about Lester, Miller and a subsidized Victorino for Polanco, Meadows and Kingham.  This would fit with Eades tweet earlier that Bell was not in the deal.  It would also address the Huntington question, "does this move the needle enough in our favor to pull the trigger?"  In the end, the Pirates would have greatly enhanced their odds of winning in 2014, without jeopardizing 2015.  They will have retained their top two pitching prospects, and Josh Bell, who would take over for Victorino in RF in 2016.  The talent they'd be trading is high, but it is from positions where the Pirates are well stocked  The Sox would have added three top 50 talents.

That is a horrible, horrible, horrible deal for the Pirates. If we're going to propose trades, could we at least use SOME logic when doing so?

 

[67WasBest]

That is a horrible, horrible, horrible deal for the Pirates. If we're going to propose trades, could we at least use SOME logic when doing so?

Ya it was a bad example, but you missed the larger point.  They can combine ballplayers, including some of their own prospects, to make any deal palatable to a trading partner.  I was addressing the point about Lester alone maybe not offering enough value.

 

[MakMan44]

Ya it was a bad example, but you missed the larger point.  They can combine ballplayers, including some of their own prospects, to make any deal palatable to a trading partner.  I was addressing the point about Lester alone maybe not offering enough value.

You're not wrong about that but no team in contention is going to give up a player that they expect to help them the WS in exchange for Lester. Kemp is about the closest one, and that's only because they have Pederson in the minors. 

 

[ElcaballitoMVP]

It doesn't have to be simply Lester in a deal.  What if we're missing the target by focusing on Bell and Meadows; and instead it's Polanco in the deal? 
 
Polanco is a better near term fit for the Sox and he had a top 15 ranking in most lists pre-season.  For Pittsburgh to trade him would require a RF in return.  To play this scenario out, how about Lester, Miller and a subsidized Victorino for Polanco, Meadows and Kingham.  This would fit with Eades tweet earlier that Bell was not in the deal.  It would also address the Huntington question, "does this move the needle enough in our favor to pull the trigger?"  In the end, the Pirates would have greatly enhanced their odds of winning in 2014, without jeopardizing 2015.  They will have retained their top two pitching prospects, and Josh Bell, who would take over for Victorino in RF in 2016.  The talent they'd be trading is high, but it is from positions where the Pirates are well stocked  The Sox would have added three top 50 talents.

 
Is there any chance this package could fetch Jason Heyward? 
 
I'm thinking Lester could head up their rotation, Miller gives them a dominant lefty in front of Kimbrel and Victorino replaces Heyward in the OF. The Braves also reportedly don't have much room to add $ this year, so Nava could be an option to replace Vic in the offer if the Braves were to move J. Upton to RF. I don't know if ATL has any interest in moving Heyward, but this offer would at least get their attention, would it not? 
 
The Sox would be in a good position to give Heyward the long term contract he's yet to receive from the Braves. He'd be a nice start to rebuilding the offense. With more prospects potentially coming back for guys like Lackey, Badenhop, Gomes, and possibly Carp, the Sox would still have plenty to offer MIA in the offseason if they finally decide to put Stanton on the market.

 

[MakMan44]

 
Is there any chance this package could fetch Jason Heyward? 
 
I'm thinking Lester could head up their rotation, Miller gives them a dominant lefty in front of Kimbrel and Victorino replaces Heyward in the OF. The Braves also reportedly don't have much room to add $ this year, so Nava could be an option to replace Vic in the offer if the Braves were to move J. Upton to RF. I don't know if ATL has any interest in moving Heyward, but this offer would at least get their attention, would it not? 
 
The Sox would be in a good position to give Heyward the long term contract he's yet to receive from the Braves. He'd be a nice start to rebuilding the offense. With more prospects potentially coming back for guys like Lackey, Badenhop, Gomes, and possibly Carp, the Sox would still have plenty to offer MIA in the offseason if they finally decide to put Stanton on the market.

No. FFS, no. 

 

[67WasBest]

 
Is there any chance this package could fetch Jason Heyward? 
 
I'm thinking Lester could head up their rotation, Miller gives them a dominant lefty in front of Kimbrel and Victorino replaces Heyward in the OF. The Braves also reportedly don't have much room to add $ this year, so Nava could be an option to replace Vic in the offer if the Braves were to move J. Upton to RF. I don't know if ATL has any interest in moving Heyward, but this offer would at least get their attention, would it not? 
 
The Sox would be in a good position to give Heyward the long term contract he's yet to receive from the Braves. He'd be a nice start to rebuilding the offense. With more prospects potentially coming back for guys like Lackey, Badenhop, Gomes, and possibly Carp, the Sox would still have plenty to offer MIA in the offseason if they finally decide to put Stanton on the market.

Atlanta has no ability to take on any salary.  In the other thread on Lester, there's a report from Pittsburgh that speaks to a deal of the structure we are talking about.  The report suggests we may have to fix numerous holes for them and possibly add our own young talent in order to get theri premium prospects.  I have no problem with that as long as they deal from their surplus and not from their core.

 

[Remagellan]

I'm really sick of all this trade Lester bullshit.  I don't care what they can get for him.  I'm a Sixers fan, and I am all in on their plan to be a great team in five years because that's the best option given the situation they find themselves in.   But this franchise is different, it has a number of players who have been part of multiple championships and the resources to retain them.  If they trade Lester, they aren't just throwing in the towel on this season; they are saying they don't expect to be competitive for the next few seasons.  And in that case, then back the whole fucking truck up.  TRADE PEDROIA, because he's not going to be part of "the next great Red Sox team" if that team's arrival date is being pushed back to 2018.   TRADE PAPI, because if they're letting a homegrown ace go then who gives a fuck about who's in the laundry, we only care about the laundry,   TRADE KOJI, because what does a team that's not planning on challenging for a playoff spot need with a 40-something closer.  And TRADE LACKEY, because that hoss isn't going to be happy winding up his career pitching meaningless games while a nursery full of future "stars" are being weened off the suck.  
 
The only way the management of this team can salvage this season is if they re-sign Jon Lester, because that would signal to the fans that they regard this season as another 2012-like anomaly and plan on putting together a team that can compete for a championship in 2015.  If they trade him, the white flag they'll be running up won't just be flying over Fenway this season, it'll be the only pennant we can expect to see in the near future.

 

[JMDurron]

Why do people keep talking about Jason Heyward as if he was still a stud player?  He's having injury issues (lower back) and his offense is down to barely above league average after 3 consecutive years of failing to match his rookie season's potential.  A young corner OFer isn't worth a ransom in trade or a massive contract as a FA if he isn't actually, you know, good at hitting a baseball anymore.  Sucking less than the current pile of offensive corpses in the OF doesn't mean that he's actually good.  I realize that average looks awesome compared to what the Red Sox have been running out there so far this season, but let's take a look at his actual performance and risk profile before getting caught up in name recognition.  
 
260/350/379 is Heyward's line so far on this season, and it's not like we're talking about a single down year.  There's also the question of how a home town kid would deal with leaving home for a big market.  It's not 2010 anymore, he's not that attractive of a target, after OPS+ of 93, 117, 113, and now 104 in the 4 seasons since his impressive debut.  
 
EDIT - Grammar failure on my part

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Sorry if this was posted already in another thread, but Speier has a very good article on Lester's history here:  http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/07/30/eye-storm-amidst-chaos-jon-lester-comes-age?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Here's a snippet:
 

"I really didn’t get to appreciate where I’m at in my career until this spring training, just because of where I’m at in my career with free agency. You sit down with your agent and they give you a book and they compare you to any pitcher that’s ever played this game," Lester said in the Red Sox dugout at Fenway Park on Monday. "You start to see your numbers next to Cy Young and Babe Ruth and the list goes on, and then you get to more current pitchers, and you get to guys that are here with you and guys that get all the pub. 
 
"They’re the elite of the elite and you start putting your numbers next to theirs and you’re going '[Shoot], I’m pretty good.' I look over at Felix Hernandez and I’m like, ‘Man, how do you do this [stuff]?’ It’s unbelievable. Or Adam Wainwright or Cole Hamels or Cliff Lee. And then all of sudden you put my name and it’s like, all right, you’re a little bit better in some categories, but I’m right there with you. That’s where I've got to kind of go, 'I am pretty good.' 
 
"Sometimes I get so focused on what I’m doing. Sometimes you need someone to go, 'Hold on, time out. Come here, let me show you this. This is where you’re at. Take a look at it, appreciate it, now move on.' And that’s what I did. It was cool. I know [agent Seth Levinson] does it for everybody, but I thanked him for showing it to me and I think that put me in a different place. Anytime you get compared to Babe Ruth and Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Hall of Famers, you’re like, maybe I’m doing something right."
 

 

[Curtis Pride]

I've compared Lester to another former Sox pitcher: Roger Clemens.
 
When he became a free agent in 1996, Clemens was 33. He was a true ace: a workhorse, throwing over 240 innings most seasons, led the AL in ERA+ several seasons.
 
Lester is 30, he's a relative workhorse (200+ innings seems to be comparable to 240+ in the 80's and 90's), and has a career ERA+ of 120. Even if he isn't a "true ace," his consistency and durability is worth keeping because his performance stabilizes the rotation. That level of production is hard to replace.
 
I think that if there is anyone to offer a 6-year contract at a market-rate price after he turns 30, it would be Lester. The odds are pretty good that he'll still be a good pitcher when he's 36. And even if he isn't you pay the age 36 season for his age 31-35 seasons. Perhaps structuring the contract with a sixth year a team option would work. I think the FO dropped the ball on this one.
 
Since that ship has sailed, my heart says "keep him and try to resign him in the offseason," but my head says that there's a bigger risk of losing him for nothing, so trade him to hedge our bets.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Why do people keep talking about Jason Heyward as if he was still a stud player?  He's having injury issues (lower back) and his offense is down to barely above league average after 3 consecutive years of failing to match his rookie season's potential.  A young corner OFer isn't worth a ransom in trade or a massive contract as a FA if he isn't actually, you know, good at hitting a baseball anymore.  Sucking less than the current pile of offensive corpses in the OF doesn't mean that he's actually good.  I realize that average looks awesome compared to what the Red Sox have been running out there so far this season, but let's take a look at his actual performance and risk profile before getting caught up in name recognition.  
 
260/350/379 is Heyward's line so far on this season, and it's not like we're talking about a single down year.  There's also the question of how a home town kid would deal with leaving home for a big market.  It's not 2010 anymore, he's not that attractive of a target, after OPS+ of 93, 117, 113, and now 104 in the 4 seasons since his impressive debut.  
 
EDIT - Grammar failure on my part

 
Assessments of Heyward depend very heavily on what you think of the defensive metrics (which rate him extremely highly) and his ability to maintain that skill over time.  If you believe the metrics are an accurate reflection of his defensive contribution and think he can maintain that level with the glove, then its not hard to project him as a 5-6 win player for a stretch going forward.

 

[nvalvo]

Why do people keep talking about Jason Heyward as if he was still a stud player?  He's having injury issues (lower back) and his offense is down to barely above league average after 3 consecutive years of failing to match his rookie season's potential.  A young corner OFer isn't worth a ransom in trade or a massive contract as a FA if he isn't actually, you know, good at hitting a baseball anymore.  Sucking less than the current pile of offensive corpses in the OF doesn't mean that he's actually good.  I realize that average looks awesome compared to what the Red Sox have been running out there so far this season, but let's take a look at his actual performance and risk profile before getting caught up in name recognition.  
 
260/350/379 is Heyward's line so far on this season, and it's not like we're talking about a single down year.  There's also the question of how a home town kid would deal with leaving home for a big market.  It's not 2010 anymore, he's not that attractive of a target, after OPS+ of 93, 117, 113, and now 104 in the 4 seasons since his impressive debut.  
 
EDIT - Grammar failure on my part

 
Two reasons:
 
1) Defense. He's routinely a +15 run defender in right. We have a big right field. 
 
2) Age curves. He's 24 years old right now. He'll be an FA after his age 25 season. That means we have the rare opportunity to make an FA acquisition *before* his prime, rather than afterwards. 
 
Your mileage may vary. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm really sick of all this trade Lester bullshit.  I don't care what they can get for him.  I'm a Sixers fan, and I am all in on their plan to be a great team in five years because that's the best option given the situation they find themselves in.   But this franchise is different, it has a number of players who have been part of multiple championships and the resources to retain them.  If they trade Lester, they aren't just throwing in the towel on this season; they are saying they don't expect to be competitive for the next few seasons.  And in that case, then back the whole fucking truck up.  TRADE PEDROIA, because he's not going to be part of "the next great Red Sox team" if that team's arrival date is being pushed back to 2018.   TRADE PAPI, because if they're letting a homegrown ace go then who gives a fuck about who's in the laundry, we only care about the laundry,   TRADE KOJI, because what does a team that's not planning on challenging for a playoff spot need with a 40-something closer.  And TRADE LACKEY, because that hoss isn't going to be happy winding up his career pitching meaningless games while a nursery full of future "stars" are being weened off the suck.  
 
The only way the management of this team can salvage this season is if they re-sign Jon Lester, because that would signal to the fans that they regard this season as another 2012-like anomaly and plan on putting together a team that can compete for a championship in 2015.  If they trade him, the white flag they'll be running up won't just be flying over Fenway this season, it'll be the only pennant we can expect to see in the near future.

 
They can trade Lester and Lackey and still field a playoff caliber team next year. They need to fix the lineup, both in response to this season and as proactive replacements for the losses of Napoli and Papi. Cashing in pitchers who they don't think are going to be here next year or the year after to stock up on prospects who will either be used to trade for a big bat (Stanton is the most popular name thrown around here) or be that next big bat (Bell? Meadows?) or maybe both makes sense.  If the move both pitchers and trade for Stanton, next year's offense looks pretty good. Victorino, Pedroia, Stanton, Papi, Napoli, Bogaerts, MIddlebrooks, Vazquez, Bradley or something like it is good enough to get back into the playoffs. The rotation will require some free agent help, but something like Shields, Buchholz, RDLR, Workman and one of Santana/Floyd/Masterson/Liriano is a playoff caliber rotation.
 
Trading Lester and Lackey is not punting on 2015. Trading them and then refusing to go out and find any replacements for them would be, but there is zero reason to believe they won't make every effort to field a competitive team next year.

 

[JMDurron]

 
Two reasons:
 
1) Defense. He's routinely a +15 run defender in right. We have a big right field. 
 
2) Age curves. He's 24 years old right now. He'll be an FA after his age 25 season. That means we have the rare opportunity to make an FA acquisition *before* his prime, rather than afterwards. 
 
Your mileage may vary. 

 
So long as we're talking about a complimentary piece around whatever new core piece is added to actually boost the offense, that's fine with me.  Not to pick on ElCab, but "he'd be a nice start to rebuilding the offense" comes across to me as looking at him as a better offensive player than he is.  He's not Stanton-light, he's potentially a young Victorino type, without the switch-hitting.  Perhaps that is generally understood and I'm misreading the sentiment, but "he's a young, well-rounded player if his bat stays where it was in 2012-2013" wasn't the impression of the case for him that I am getting.  There's a difference between getting the prime years of a solid, well-rounded player with some significant offensive risk factors and getting the prime years of some kind of "True Stud" like a Stanton.  

 

[ookami7m]

Not to be thread police but the question of "Should Lester be traded?" seems to be answered already by the Sox who are doing everything they can to trade him. In a world with 3 of the top 5 threads on Lester, this one should be locked and the conversation condensed.

 

[JMDurron]

 
He has the exact same WAR as Stanton does right now. 5.1. He's not a masher but he's a much better defender and a solid hitter at almost the exact same age as Stanton. He also still has upside left in his bat. So while i understand the point you are making, which of the two things has more room to grow?

 
If Heyward really is still a solid hitter, and isn't falling off the table as teams go after holes in his swing with him failing to adjust (I have no idea why his offense has trended the way that it has, maybe he's an OPS+ 110 guy with high variance), and he stays healthy, I'd agree with you that he has more room to grow back into his offensive upside than Stanton does to suddenly become a better defender.  If the goal is to find a logical heir to Victorino in RF, then Heyward makes as much sense as anybody.  If the goal is to build the core of a new lineup for the impending post-Papi era, then I think Heyward as a primary target makes no sense, or at the very least is fraught with both offensive and injury downside, much like Victorino, actually.  It's just a matter of the requirement that we're trying to meet as fantasy Red Sox GMs.  Heyward and Stanton seem to be getting thrown together as "get one of them to rebuild the offense" targets, when it really needs to be "Get a Stanton type to rebuild the offense", followed by "Get a Heyward type to be a solid player in Fenway's RF who can complement the new core" as a separate goal.  
 
I'm sure I'll find a way to get excited about Heyward if the Red Sox were to acquire him.  There just seems to be more of a consensus of excitement about him than I think his recent track record warrants.  By all means,I could really get behind targeting both Stanton and Heyward, I just don't see them as substitutes for each other.  
 
Anyway, I think we both understand each other's point, and I'd say that this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten.  

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I've compared Lester to another former Sox pitcher: Roger Clemens.
 
When he became a free agent in 1996, Clemens was 33. He was a true ace: a workhorse, throwing over 240 innings most seasons, led the AL in ERA+ several seasons.
 
Lester is 30, he's a relative workhorse (200+ innings seems to be comparable to 240+ in the 80's and 90's), and has a career ERA+ of 120. Even if he isn't a "true ace," his consistency and durability is worth keeping because his performance stabilizes the rotation. That level of production is hard to replace.
 
I think that if there is anyone to offer a 6-year contract at a market-rate price after he turns 30, it would be Lester. The odds are pretty good that he'll still be a good pitcher when he's 36. And even if he isn't you pay the age 36 season for his age 31-35 seasons. Perhaps structuring the contract with a sixth year a team option would work. I think the FO dropped the ball on this one.
 
Since that ship has sailed, my heart says "keep him and try to resign him in the offseason," but my head says that there's a bigger risk of losing him for nothing, so trade him to hedge our bets.

 
Not to single you out, but there are two things I have to say to this.  (1)  As far as I know, we literally have no idea which pitchers are going to pitch well into their late 30s and which will not.  If anyone knew, they'd be making several gazillion dollars running baseball teams.  So when people (again, not just you sorry) try to handicap the future and say "The odds are pretty good," well, that's probably based more on what you want to see than anything else.
 
(2)  It's entirely possible that the Sox's desire for team options or vesting options or some sort of medical protection made the talks go nowhere (I think it was the root cause but I admit I'm guessing as much as anyone else).  Those kind of options are incredibly valuable, so while it's great to think the Lester would sign a contract that had that kind of team friendly clause, well in that case, I wouldn't think much of his agents.
 
Again, not singling you out but trying to respond to people who have suggested similar things.