The Jon Lester Affair -- A Poll

[jscola85]

Word. Ditto the idea that whatever offer was made was "insulting". I could see how Lester might be disappointed given that he seems to like Boston but there is no such thing as an insulting offer in business. The word is only used in posturing. And whether we like it or not, Lester is a business, man.

 
The problem with this argument is twofold:
 
1. There has been inflation in salaries since 2010.  Even a modest 3% per year inflation turns 5/$85 into 5/$95.  At a more reasonable 5% rate, that's 5/$103.
 
2. Lester at the end of 2013 was a materially better pitcher than Lackey at the end of 2009.  So to start at Lackey numbers is disingenuous.
 
Insulting was probably too strong a word, but 4/$70 was a clear lowball, and I think it was a poor tactic.  Lester was operating in good faith and put his cards on the table to say he was going to accept a reasonable offer.  The Sox countered by trying to play hardball.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

 
The problem with this argument is twofold:
 
1. There has been inflation in salaries since 2010.  Even a modest 3% per year inflation turns 5/$85 into 5/$95.  At a more reasonable 5% rate, that's 5/$103.
 
2. Lester at the end of 2013 was a materially better pitcher than La ckey at the end of 2009.  So to start at Lackey numbers is disingenuous.
 
Insulting was probably too strong a word, but 4/$70 was a clear lowball, and I think it was a poor tactic.  Lester was operating in good faith and put his cards on the table to say he was going to accept a reasonable offer.  The Sox countered by trying to play hardball.

Or they never intended to sign him at all and signaled it to Lester with their offer.

 

[Saints Rest]

Back in Spring Training, I argued as did many others here, that Lester's recent track record (i.e. the last 3 seaons, not the last 3 months) put him in the land of 2nd tier guys -- guys in the 20th to 40th best land -- not in the land of top-20 pitchers.  Thus 4/70 was not an insult.

Then Lester spent 2014 acting like a top-5, top-10, guy which means that now many of us, myself included, see a $25m AAV as reasonable.

Looking back over the last 10-12 years (i.e. this ownership group's lifetime as RS owners), who are the players that they let walk, or traded away before imminent free agency, who left us feeling like they had made a bad decision?

• Pedro -- not really.  One good year, one so-so year, and then a sad decline.
• Nomar -- nope.
• Damon -- maybe.  Put up 4 pretty good years in pinstripes.
• Papelbon -- nope
• Ellsbury -- too soon to tell
• Manny -- Got out just in time
• Jason Bay --  Got out just in time
• Who else am I missing?

On the other hand, who were the players that they re-signed to multi-year deals, and how have those worked out?

• Lowell --  :barf:
• Ortiz -- pretty darn good, but it's been mostly short-term contracts
• Pedey -- good so far, but the decline over the past two years is a bit worrying with 5-6 years left
• Napoli -- maybe
• Beckett --  :barf:
• WHo else am I missing?

So my sense is to vote for #2.  It sucks (Lester and Pedey are the only two named jersey's that I have bought) but I get it.  If this were a BBTL poll, this choice might say "In Bill We Trust."

 

[jasail]

 
And why does his 2014 salary matter?  He was guaranteed that no matter what.  And he's better than Lackey. 
 
Arguing whether it was insulting or not is pointless.  But saying it was a ridiculous offer is totally legit.  I'd love to know what people think Lester would've been offered on the open market if the Sox didn't pick up his option.

 
In December 2009, John Lackey recently turned 31 and had compiled 1501 IP with a 3.81 ERA, 116 ERA+, 3.83 FIP, 1.306 WHIP and a 2.72 k/bb. In March 2014, Jon Lester recently turned 30 and had compiled 1376 IP with a 3.76 ERA, a 117 ERA+, a 3.71 FIP, a 1.304 WHIP and 2.49 k/bb. So it is reasonable to state that at the time the Sox offered both Lester and Lackey deals, they were essentially a very similar pitcher and keep in mind that Lackey put up his numbers entirely in an offensively inflated environment, whereas Lester put up some of his numbers in a declining offensive environment.  
 
That said, I agree that the economic environment had changed. While the Sox may have felt that giving him a deal that started where Lackey finished would accomplish this, I think they would have been better served offering something of the range of $105/5 (particularly considering his recent WS performance) and telling him to take it or leave it. This decision to offer a Lackey-esque deal was then exacerbated by Lester's performance this year, so he is no longer entering the market as a #1A or #2 type pitcher but as a bonafide ace. To that point, he's likely increased his value by upwards of $50M based on his performance this season alone.    

 

[jscola85]

Or they never intended to sign him at all and signaled it to Lester with their offer.

 
If that was the case, they were probably better off just saying as such in the first place, or trading him in the offseason to maximize value.

 

[ookami7m]

I think people are going to be surprised by how big a deal Lester ends up getting, similar to the way Ellsbury's deal ended up 40-50% higher than our consensus for what the Sox should offer.

 
I was coming here to post this same thing. Once FA starts in November I would not be surprised at all to see Lester get a 6 or 7 year deal from someone north of 23MM/year, Especially since he'll be the top FA pitcher by far.

 

[tims4wins]

Other. I understand and even support the approach taken (lower offer in the spring, make him prove he is an ace, not giving long term deals to guys in their 30s, etc.), but I am disappointed that Lester won't be a career Red Sox.

 

[rembrat]

 
In December 2009, John Lackey recently turned 31 and had compiled 1501 IP with a 3.81 ERA, 116 ERA+, 3.83 FIP, 1.306 WHIP and a 2.72 k/bb. In March 2014, Jon Lester recently turned 30 and had compiled 1376 IP with a 3.76 ERA, a 117 ERA+, a 3.71 FIP, a 1.304 WHIP and 2.49 k/bb. So it is reasonable to state that at the time the Sox offered both Lester and Lackey deals, they were essentially a very similar pitcher and keep in mind that Lackey put up his numbers entirely in an offensively inflated environment, whereas Lester put up some of his numbers in a declining offensive environment.  

 
I think you have that reversed, friend.

 

[yecul]

I don't like it, but I understand.
 
While I have my favorites I am definitely a laundry fan. I have faith in the front office to build quality baseball teams and to move on from mistakes if they make them (Valentine, Gonzalez/Crawford). Recovery and course changes are only possible if you are not tied to decisions long term. The Gonzalez/Crawford trade was pretty damn epic and surprising. That get out of jail free card comes along only once.
 
The organization has decided that these big/long deals. Any basic look at the history of these deals shows that they are usually mediocre to awful investments. I support the organization and I have faith in the front office. As such, I will (somewhat) accept this take. I am of the opinion that this is not a hard rule and would be broken for the right player. They would give Stanton a huge deal, for example, IMO. I don't think they see Lester as a player that is a safe investment at the amount he will probably get and I tend to agree with that take. The concern for us as fans is that this is a sign of impending doom for the near and long term -- how can they succeed without Lester and players under these contracts? I would say that they can and will.
 
Of course, it is possible that they intend to sign him to a big contract and are extracting value from his two months and will be bringing him back. I don't expect it, but who knows. I mention this because that'd kill my above paragraph.

 

[jasail]

 
I think you have that reversed, friend.

 
While it may have not been eloquently stated, my point was that Lackey played a bulk of his career (2002-2008) in the hyper-offensive environment, whereas, some of Lester's numbers came during a lesser offensive period (2011-2013). Granted Lester wasn't particularly good in 2011 or 2012, but offensive production was not as strong in those years as it was in the early-to-mid 2000s.  On the other side, Lester pitched in the AL East, so maybe the point is moot. Regardless, let's not hyper-analyze a secondary statement and miss  the over-arching point: Lester in April 2014 and Lackey in December 2009 had very similar career numbers. 

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

 
If that was the case, they were probably better off just saying as such in the first place, or trading him in the offseason to maximize value.

Why would they do that? They were likely hoping to contend this year and that wouldn't have helped Lester feel good about the team. By holding off, they retained the option to contend, trade him at the deadline or, if things changed somehow, keep him.

Its also debatable whether his value would have been graeter last offseason although I do acknowledge that a team might have paid up for a full season. On the flip side his performance to date may have bridged that gap.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

 
While it may have not been eloquently stated, my point was that Lackey played a bulk of his career (2002-2008) in the hyper-offensive environment, whereas, some of Lester's numbers came during a lesser offensive period (2011-2013). Granted Lester wasn't particularly good in 2011 or 2012, but offensive production was not as strong in those years as it was in the early-to-mid 2000s.  On the other side, Lester pitched in the AL East, so maybe the point is moot. Regardless, let's not hyper-analyze a secondary statement and miss  the over-arching point: Lester in April 2014 and Lackey in December 2009 had very similar career numbers. 

lester deserves a premium to that Lackey though because his numbers were earned at Fenway Park with Red Sox media. Much different story than Anaheim

 

[tomdeplonty]

I voted Other, explain.
 
I don't understand what the FO is doing here, and it really looks like the wrong move. I believe they could have re-signed him on a five-year deal. It might have been an overpay, but I think it would have put them in a better position to contend for at least the next few seasons. Not only because they'd still have him, but because they would have been in a more flexible position to deal from their surplus pitching.
 
Unlike some, though, I don't think the FO consists of a bunch of idiots, and I assume that there is a plan here. I just can't imagine what it is right now. I'm very interested to see what takes shape between now and next spring.

 

[smastroyin]

It's worth noting that you could also note that Lackey was the highest paid FA pitcher (in both years and AAV) that off-season, and by a significant amount.  

 

[bosox62]

I just hate that it got to this.  Instead of letting him go (like I did with Brooklyn and Kate), let's just calm down and hope John and Ben can settle this like adults after the season winds to a torturous end..

 

[Plympton91]

I don't think the FO consists of a bunch of idiots, and I assume that there is a plan here. I just can't imagine what it is right now. I'm very interested to see what takes shape between now and next spring.

 
This is my main problem.  I can understand all the negatives about signing Lester to a slightly discounted ace-level-AAV, long-term deal, but those negatives apply to every other conceivable option for building a competitive front of the rotation next season.  In fact, if Buchholz doesn't get his shit together, competing in 2015 may have required adding Shields to Lester and Lackey, not using Shields to replace one of them.  So, if the front office plans to sign Scherzer and Shields this offseason, then that's one way to go that I guess would be fantastic for the laundry machine, but 1) I don't see that as consistent with Henry's views about long-term contracts to players through their mid-30s and 2) I hate Scherzer and Shields, they are forever associated with the enemies of the past decade.  It'll be like having to root for Pierzynski, except they have talent.  Not sure where that nets out in enjoyment.  

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

 
This is my main problem.  I can understand all the negatives about signing Lester to a slightly discounted ace-level-AAV, long-term deal, but those negatives apply to every other conceivable option for building a competitive front of the rotation next season.  In fact, if Buchholz doesn't get his shit together, competing in 2015 may have required adding Shields to Lester and Lackey, not using Shields to replace one of them.  So, if the front office plans to sign Scherzer and Shields this offseason, then that's one way to go that I guess would be fantastic for the laundry machine, but 1) I don't see that as consistent with Henry's views about long-term contracts to players through their mid-30s and 2) I hate Scherzer and Shields, they are forever associated with the enemies of the past decade.  It'll be like having to root for Pierzynski, except they have talent.  Not sure where that nets out in enjoyment.  

 
I think this is the assumption you probably need to question.  Rightly or wrongly, the front office's actions make a lot more sense if they're skeptical of this team's ability to compete in 2015 (with or without a pricey front-of-the-rotation pitcher) and are really playing for 2016 and beyond.  In that case, locking themselves into a big contract now (Lester) or this offseason (Lester or Scherzer) doesn't make a lot of sense, as you're taking on a lot of risk and would be much better off spending the dollars a year later in the offseason before 2016.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

To me the more interesting question is how the FO has handled the whole affair.
 
That gets a big fat F from me. So I clicked "Other" on this poll. Situation that could have -- and should have -- been avoided.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Lesters 2011-2013 seasons were somewhat inconsistent although he was awesome to finish 2013 and to start 2011.  He has had a great 2014.  Long term deals for SP'ers are always gambles  though. 
 
Red Sox obviously betting on the farm producing quality SP'ers to replace Lester et all, which is also a bit of a gamble.   Coming off a World Series title and 3 in 10 years, they will get support for letting Lester walk as a free agent, and even more support if they get something in return via trade. 
 
I understand the business aspects here, but letting someone of Lesters caliber go always hurts in the short term as we have seen with Ellsbury this year.    However, three years from now both moves will likely look like no brainers.

 

[EricFeczko]

It sucks to see him go, because it means that the red sox have sucked this season. However, we don't know if he'll be gone for long.
There's a lot of rampant speculation on this board about the intentions and offers from/between the two sides. In such situations, I tend to go by Occam's Razor, which in this case is this: http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11257575/jon-lester-boston-red-sox-agree-postpone-contract-negotiations-season.
 
To me, the simplest thing that happened is that negotiations during the offseason were postponed once the regular season started. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that such agreements have occurred in the past for a number of players. It makes sense, since both the team and the player may gain added information as to the future value of the player, which may lead to a more consistent evaluation and therefore agreement between the two sides.

If talks are postponed until after the season, and Lester still considers Boston his number one spot even if traded, why not trade Lester anyways? If Lester wants free market money and the red sox won't pay it, keeping him doesn't make sense. If Lester is willing to give Boston a discount (which he has said every time), and that a trade won't affect such desire (which he has also suggested recently), than keeping him also doesn't make sense.


 

 

[caminante11]

I can see the disconnect.  Lester is pitching like one of the top pitchers in baseball.  However, coming into this season he was nowhere close. Lester was willing to sign to a discount on the going ace rate.  The Red Sox do not believe he is an ace as he does not have a huge amount of history pitching like one.
 
Did you know that in a 12 team fantasy draft full of members of this very board Lester was taken in the 11th round?  Lester was the 47th rated starting pitcher entering the season according to Yahoo Fantasy Baseball.  Lester is having an awesome year but signing him now would be buying extremely high.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I think people are going to be surprised by how big a deal Lester ends up getting, similar to the way Ellsbury's deal ended up 40-50% higher than our consensus for what the Sox should offer.

You might well be right, but my reactions to that are (a) every other GM has access to the same data that JWH and our FO do about the fate of long-term megadeals to the 30+ demographic, so let's wait and see, and (b) if you are right, Lester signing for something like 7/180 is going to be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the FO.

 

[AB in DC]

Other.  Because I'm still holding out hope that he'll re-sign back with Boston after the season is over, in which case, who cares where he pitches for the next two months?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

every other GM has access to the same data that JWH and our FO do about the fate of long-term megadeals to the 30+ demographic,

 
I'm not sure every other GM cares about whether a contract will be an albatross in five years.  Winning now is a great thing for job security.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
I'm not sure every other GM cares about whether a contract will be an albatross in five years.  Winning now is a great thing for job security.

 
Yes, and the data available are of highly questionable relevance.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
I'm not sure every other GM cares about whether a contract will be an albatross in five years.  Winning now is a great thing for job security.

Oh, I agree, which is why I had (b) there.  Given that there are only 30 MLB GM jobs on the planet, careerist idiots are definitely overrepresented among the pool at any given time.

 

[KillerBs]

Couple benefits of no trade is that the main question here -- what the Sox prepared to pay to retain Lester -- will return to center stage, where it belongs. It will give the fans a chance to weigh in on the issue more directly. Him walking off the mound in his possible last start for the Red Sox would make for great theatre and the owners squirm, which I find appealing.
 
Does this outweigh acquiring Joc Pederson or Josh Bell -- plainly not. But it looks like Ben's not pulling in those 2 A prospects he has been insisting on. One looks optimistic from what one can guess of today's leaks. We'll see.

 

[KillerBs]

Look, what the Sox are prepared to pay for Lester is a pretty significant question for the franchise, which highly dependent addicts like many of us, have no small emotional investment in. I am frankly a little mystified why so many of you think fan anger at the FO about this is off-limits.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Look, what the Sox are prepared to pay for Lester is a pretty significant question for the franchise, which highly dependent addicts like many of us, have no small emotional investment in. I am frankly a little mystified why so many of you think fan anger at the FO about this is off-limits.

It's not off-limits, it's just boring and childishly simplistic.

 

[Stitch01]

I voted other. I don't think they're going to miss a lot of value in a vacuum by not signing Lester at this point, but I don't really understand the alternative rotation options. Maybe they have a great plan, but I'm struggling to figure out what it is.

Of course whatever they are up to here, the one thing that would cause me to lose faith quickly in the front office would be making decisions based on fans weighing in or Lester getting cheers leaving the mound.