Well someone suggested in the Lester thread that they could potentially get two top 5 prospects from a team. That, for the most part, would be getting blown away.Savin Hillbilly said:I voted "If they get blown away" with the assumption that this is essentially equivalent to a "no."
Right, absolutely, and if they get that kind of offer they should take it, which is why I voted that way. I just don't think it's going to happen. Not for a two-month rental.MakMan44 said:Well someone suggested in the Lester thread that they could potentially get two top 5 prospects from a team. That, for the most part, would be getting blown away.
dittoSavin Hillbilly said:I voted "If they get blown away" with the assumption that this is essentially equivalent to a "no."
I'd put Detroit and Seattle on the list too.NY, LA, Chicago, or someone will make him an offer that the Sox won't match.
Agreed. I was trying to make it clear what exactly "blown away" means in the poll.Savin Hillbilly said:Right, absolutely, and if they get that kind of offer they should take it, which is why I voted that way. I just don't think it's going to happen. Not for a two-month rental.
Rudy Pemberton said:I suspect that for multiple reasons though, they won't trade him. The PR hit isn't worth what they'd get.
Yes.glennhoffmania said:
Would the PR hit from trading him really be worse than the PR hit from letting him walk after offering him 4/70?
glennhoffmania said:
Would the PR hit from trading him really be worse than the PR hit from letting him walk after offering him 4/70?
Or maybe the Oakland A's. I can live with that.rembrat said:
Yes. Trading away a guy you can't "afford" means you are the Tampa Bay Rays.
Agreed.Rudy Pemberton said:Yes, because it won't be seen as them "letting him walk". The story will be that they made him lots of big offers and that he left because he wanted even more. If they trade him, the team is the one who made the move...not Lester.
The O's have a bitch of a 10-game West coast road trip starting tonight. If the Sox can play good ball they should be able to tighten this race up in the next 10 days.1. It depends whether they can get their playoff odds meaningfully out of the single digits by the deadline. If go on a run and improve them to, say, 15%, I'd keep him.
dcmissle said:PR fits into NONE of these calculations. I don't want any of the typical "he left us, we didn't leave him" crap. Cold businesslike decision, which I'm pretty sure camp Lester would understand. Without the usual spin and talking points.
Trautwein's Degree said:
Lester would be foolish to sign a deal at this point. The benefit he gets in signing a deal in spring training is a year of security against injury. Right now he is about 12 starts away from being a free agent. Accepting the Sox offer during the exclusive period would be foolish because he'll never get lower than that amount. The Red Sox haven't shown any willingness to be the highest bidder in the Lester sweepstakes.
Price isn;t a FA until '16. He's arb eligible next year.shoosh77 said:Gammons on WFAN yesterday threw out Corey Seager and Joc Pederson from the Dodgers for Price. That would be a "blown away" for Lester right?
You would need money coming back to make either of those options better than the comp pick, and that would only make the PR worse.Plympton91 said:To people who say make a cold, hard business decision, to get something better than a compensation pick and then move on, would you trade John Lester straight up for Allen Craig if that was the best offer on the table? How about Lester and Nava for Matt Kemp?
I disagree with this. A pitcher like Lester can shift the power this year in a very close division. A team in GFIN mode might see this and pay for it.Bone Chips said:It's worth reiterating here that any team acquiring Lester in a trade will NOT get a compensatory pick in the 2015 draft if he is lost to free agency at the end of the season. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/07/poll-top-prospects-for-rental-players.html
With this in mind, I agree with Savin and others who say that the odds of being blown away with a trade proposal are very remote.
Bone Chips said:It's worth reiterating here that any team acquiring Lester in a trade will NOT get a compensatory pick in the 2015 draft if he is lost to free agency at the end of the season. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/07/poll-top-prospects-for-rental-players.html
With this in mind, I agree with Savin and others who say that the odds of being blown away with a trade proposal are very remote.
Andrew said:It's shocking and disappointing that 35 people want to get rid of Lester for anything.
Plympton91 said:How about Lester and Nava for Matt Kemp?
That is correct.P said:
Foolish only if he's shooting for the most money he can get. His comments during the spring suggest that he was focused on getting enough money, and that other variables were going to be important in the decision. They may not want to, but there's reason to still believe that the Sox only need to pony up enough.
I say "only if they're blown away," which, as others noted, is probably the same as "no" given the offers that are likely to come in for him.
I voted no with the assumption they won't get blown away.Savin Hillbilly said:I voted "If they get blown away" with the assumption that this is essentially equivalent to a "no."
I wasn't advocating for those trades per se, I was just wondering what the "trade him for anything" crowd was thinking. Both Kemp and Craig are far more likely to help the Red Sox going forward than a compensation pick or even any reasonably expected prospect return.Savin Hillbilly said:
Let's see. We think Lester will cost, say, $160M over the next 7 years, but we don't want to pay that. So instead we trade him for a guy who will cost us about $110M over the next 5 years--the major difference being that Lester is still a very, very good pitcher, while Kemp is increasingly an ordinary outfielder. And on top of that, we're going to throw in a serviceable platoon OF who's team-controlled for three more years.
Why on earth would we do this?
Kemp is the new Vernon Wells. Let somebody else solve the Dodgers' problem for them.
Now if the deal was Pederson for Lester, that's another story. But that's the kind of deal that isn't gonna happen.
Plympton91 said:Fake Edit: Seems like Kemp has been terrible again lately; I hadn't checked since I saw his June split that showed a 900 OPS. So, scratch him. But the point is, if you want to trade Lester "for anything" then getting a player like Allen Craig should qualify under that definition.
Added a new question that I think reflects this.yecul said:The poll could have a second question: Do you think they are able/willing to sign him?
I would guess that most people voting to trade or are willing to trade would answer No to the above. That is the case for me.
If it's between him walking and getting a pick vs trading for a nice return, then I choose the latter. This assumes that the trade return > draft pick as well.
I never thought we'd get Craig for Peavy, but again, that's not the issue. The issue is, what does "trade him for anything" really mean?DrewDawg said:
The same Allen Craig that people thought we may get for Peavy? I think Lester would bring a bit more back in trade than Peavy.