Wow. We almost made it 10 whole posts before Stanton (who is not even available and has NEVER been mentioned in the same breath with Boston outside of SOSH) made it into this thread.Yaz4Ever said:
Et tu, Yaz?
Trading Jon Lester (news and speculation thread)
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
- Status
Et tu, Yaz?
Well they were sort of right about Pedro. He cost the Mets $50Million for 8 WAR.The Boomer said:
The Red Sox turned around and gave Matt Ckement $25Million for 2.8WAR.
If the Red Sox find a better/cheaper pitcher than Lester, they should get all the credit they deserve.
If they don't, it's going to be rough going.
There have been aboot 60 posts in this thread since I went to bed last night. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Here, Let Me Google That For You.
Spoiler Alert: 186,000 hits. NESN, MLBTradeRumors, etc
Double Spoiler Alert: the Red Sox are almost definitely pursuing a plan of clearing their high-minors logjam by dumping a bunch for a plus-plus player, and Stanton's on that short list.
maxotaur said:
Here, Let Me Google That For You.
Spoiler Alert: 186,000 hits. NESN, MLBTradeRumors, etc
Double Spoiler Alert: the Red Sox are almost definitely pursuing a plan of clearing their high-minors logjam by dumping a bunch for a plus-plus player, and Stanton's on that short list.
xjack said:
A likely prediction. Lester has always been one of the best #2 starters more than he was an ace. If he has a good enough team around him to make it to the postseason, he has the heart of a lion and has a track record of pitching like an ace in the glare of the spotlight. However, he is more an Andy Pettite than he is a Clayton Kershaw. He has more value to the contending Dodgers, Cardinals and Pirates for the rest of this season than he does for the Sox in the absence of the 4 years with options kind of extension that Sox management prefers. While he is good, he is not an irreplaceable ace. Owens has at least this much upside and fans would howl if he was traded away for anything less than Giancarlo Stanton. If they can obtain the kind of high upside outfielder or prospect before 4 p.m. tomorrow that the Sox need more going forward, I can see Escobar and Owens ending up as cost effective reasonable lefty replacements by 2016 if not before.
Would we have won it in 05 with Pedro?snowmanny said:
Overpaying for Lester wouldn't be a disaster. Like it or not, not every player on our team will have a $:WAR ratio that looks great, but that's okay because our payroll is huge. We also won't have enough prospects to be able to get two young studs who we're willing to pay $200m for, so where does that leave us?
In the end, we have the payroll space to afford to overpay him. We're not going to go with a $120m payroll. The roster space needs to be filled with someone. Are we going to fill it with 2 win Clement types and have a $140m payroll and accept it or do we want to have a 5 win Lester even if that extra 3 win costs us $30m?
There is a window of opportunity for the club to overpay to put us over the top because we have a lot of young cost-controlled talent. I'm not even sure if that window is open right now because the kids don't look ready yet. Maybe it'll open next year or more likely the year after. That may be when we'll overpay for free agents to put us over the top, but I hope when that time comes, the FO doesn't stick to this absurd notion that overpaying for players is bad because we won't be able to get premium talent otherwise.
Bigpupp said:
That pick alone would be between the supplemental first rounder plus a second rounder that the Sox might get if, surprisingly, Lester would go to a lower tier team with a high protected first round pick. Wouldn't the Mets be in that category?
The Boomer said:
I agree with this. On the other hand, losing him would hurt less if not for the stark reality that without him, we don't even have a Pettitte.
As for Owens having just as much upside, all I can say is that I have never heard as much division of opinion about any Sox prospect's ceiling as I have about Owens. And the funny part is that everybody seems to love him and agree that he's untouchable. It's just that some people say he's untouchable because he's the second coming of Cliff Lee, and others say he's untouchable because he's really quite likely to make a good third starter--this latter is a head-scratcher but seems to be quite a common view. But it certainly seems to me that most profiles I have read do not support the idea that he has Lester-like upside.
Jon Lester isn't unreplaceable. At all. It's just that to replace him will either (a) cost similar amounts of money on similarly aged pitchers (Shields, Hamels, etc.), and if that's the case, what's the point in letting Lester go? Or (b) take a lot of time, as Owens (who *might* get to Lester's level) or another one of their bright pitching prospects matures and gets to that point. Do we want to wait long enough for (b) to occur?
A 2015 rotation of Lackey, Masterson, Buchholz (assuming he rebounds), RDLR, and Workman isn't the best rotation in the league, but it's solid for sure.
A 2015 rotation of Lackey, Masterson, Buchholz (assuming he rebounds), RDLR, and Workman isn't the best rotation in the league, but it's solid for sure.
Savin Hillbilly said:
You might be right but it will cost the Sox a lot less than $150+ million to see how he will perform in the next 6 years than it will cost them for a likely declining Lester over that same time period.
As for the Andy Pettitte comp, it's a fair one – Chad Finn did this piece a few weeks back:
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/07/jon_lester_andy_pettitte.html
The only point I would add to that is that I think the Yankees thought they could live without Pettitte in the 2003-4 offseason ... and ultimately I think they were wrong. Which is why they ultimately brought him back.
The thing is, a decade on, the game has changed. Today:
1. Long-term contracts to players over 30 are rarely worth the money
2. Talented pitchers in the post-steroid era appear to be more replaceable than hitters with power.
Ergo, the FO isn't concerned with paying the "market rate" because the market hadn't adjusted to reflect this yet.
So there you have it: on one hand, they may be recalibrating their payroll to afford hitters that will be increasingly expensive in the coming decade. On the other, they may be losing the opportunity to maintain a stable, contributing asset for much of the next decade. To me, it's not a slam dunk—and probably sucks in the short term—but I do see their point. And it's completely consistent with the Pedroia extension and non-competitive to Ellsbury.
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/07/jon_lester_andy_pettitte.html
The only point I would add to that is that I think the Yankees thought they could live without Pettitte in the 2003-4 offseason ... and ultimately I think they were wrong. Which is why they ultimately brought him back.
The thing is, a decade on, the game has changed. Today:
1. Long-term contracts to players over 30 are rarely worth the money
2. Talented pitchers in the post-steroid era appear to be more replaceable than hitters with power.
Ergo, the FO isn't concerned with paying the "market rate" because the market hadn't adjusted to reflect this yet.
So there you have it: on one hand, they may be recalibrating their payroll to afford hitters that will be increasingly expensive in the coming decade. On the other, they may be losing the opportunity to maintain a stable, contributing asset for much of the next decade. To me, it's not a slam dunk—and probably sucks in the short term—but I do see their point. And it's completely consistent with the Pedroia extension and non-competitive to Ellsbury.
The same Masterson that's putting up a sensational 68 ERA+ and 1.7 WHIP this year?ivanvamp said:
Can we stop with the Shields chatter ?
He's the third best pitcher on the FA market and it's a given he'll be looking for that 5th year given the number of teams interested . If they didn't want to pay/"overpay" a pitcher in his 30's in lester they're not going to do it for Shields. The other names (Santana, Masterson ) are so uninspiring and risky I don't see the Red Sox going there.
Everyone needs to hope the Cardinals lose their mind and trade us Taveras to keep Lester away from LA.
As for the preemptive hate for Kemp or even preemptively saying the hate for him will be equal to Crawford. I mean the only word for that is Wow.
Also if they trade Lester for a pu pu platter of guys in high to low a the majority of the red sox fanbase if not this site will lose their minds.
He's the third best pitcher on the FA market and it's a given he'll be looking for that 5th year given the number of teams interested . If they didn't want to pay/"overpay" a pitcher in his 30's in lester they're not going to do it for Shields. The other names (Santana, Masterson ) are so uninspiring and risky I don't see the Red Sox going there.
Everyone needs to hope the Cardinals lose their mind and trade us Taveras to keep Lester away from LA.
As for the preemptive hate for Kemp or even preemptively saying the hate for him will be equal to Crawford. I mean the only word for that is Wow.
Also if they trade Lester for a pu pu platter of guys in high to low a the majority of the red sox fanbase if not this site will lose their minds.
Heyman's pegged the Cardinals and Dodgers as the two most aggressive teams.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24642912/dodgers-and-cardinals-vie-in-race-for-top-pitchers-lester-and-price
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24642912/dodgers-and-cardinals-vie-in-race-for-top-pitchers-lester-and-price
Regarding "preemptive hate" of Kemp, to be fair, there are two problems in addition to the fact that he is massively overpaid on his current contract. Even assuming LaD eats much of that money:
1. He has not been able to remain healthy since 2012. It's been one thing after another.
2. He is vocal when things displease him.
We have enough problems as is, so I understand and share the concern.
But if reports are to be believed -- the RS scouted him heavily -- he could well be a FO binkie.
1. He has not been able to remain healthy since 2012. It's been one thing after another.
2. He is vocal when things displease him.
We have enough problems as is, so I understand and share the concern.
But if reports are to be believed -- the RS scouted him heavily -- he could well be a FO binkie.
I still am hoping for a Taveras package for Lester. This guy is probably the best post season pitcher in baseball. Imagine getting Taveras and then bringing Lester back!
Sorry if this has been covered, but what's the consensus on the roster move to clear a spot on the 25-man roster for Workman tonight, assuming a Lester trade hasn't happened by then?
Assuming Webster will remain in the rotation, I don't see anyone with options who wouldn't be sorely missed for a 10-day stint in Pawtucket. Is it time to give up on Drew? Is there any chance Ben would be confident enough of trading Lester to DFA him?
Assuming Webster will remain in the rotation, I don't see anyone with options who wouldn't be sorely missed for a 10-day stint in Pawtucket. Is it time to give up on Drew? Is there any chance Ben would be confident enough of trading Lester to DFA him?
You could option Webster then bring up Renaudo later.
Or DFA Mujica. Very likely he doesn't get claimed, and who cares if he does at this point?
Or DFA Mujica. Very likely he doesn't get claimed, and who cares if he does at this point?
maufman said:
I would think RDLR goes back to Pawtucket and they'll skip his turn and bring him back in 10 days. The Red Sox are off Thursday, next Monday and the following Monday.
edit: I assume they are going to hit an innings limit with RDLR pretty soon. He pitched 91.2 innings last year and he's at 114.1 innings already this year.
Corsi said:
Outside of the Yankees, the Orioles are just about the only other team I would have a hard time seeing Lester pitch for. For one, he has OWNED the O's over his career so it would just be strange to see him turn around and pitch for them. And two, I think Showalter may have passed Maddon on my irrational hatred list.
I don't have any hate for Kemp. I don't imagine his presence in the deal will do anything other than boost the value of whatever else we receive from LA.
Unless of course he's almost completely subsidized, which would be somewhat anticlimactic, if not an entirely bad thing.
Unless of course he's almost completely subsidized, which would be somewhat anticlimactic, if not an entirely bad thing.
A buddy and I now refer to him as Buck Doubleday because in the guy's mind he seems pretty sure that he invented the game.DrewDawg said:
No DL move if Doubie is getting moved in the next 24hours. I can see him as part of a package deal.
I forgot Ranaudo was on the 40-man. They'll probably send down RDLR if they have concerns about his workload, or Webster if they don't.smastroyin said:
Rough Carrigan said:
I was at Camden a couple years ago and an older gentleman overheard me call Buck an asshole. Dude was seriously offended and asked me to provide specific examples as to why he I thought that. I merely responded that it's a certifiable fact and if he didn't know Buck is an asshole, then he clearly knew nothing about him.
- Status