Trading Jon Lester (news and speculation thread)
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
- Status
Don't forget Reynolds' excellent analysis: "If I'm the team trading for Lester, I'm asking the Sox why I should give up much since they missed out on signing him and have to trade him now. Why am I paying for that?"
Because other teams would like to have him, too, Harold, and because the Sox can get a compensation pick. Any other questions?
And Karros didn't even know that any team that trades for him won't be eligible to receive a draft pick as compensation.
What a horrible show that must be. Glad tonight is the only time I've watched
Because other teams would like to have him, too, Harold, and because the Sox can get a compensation pick. Any other questions?
And Karros didn't even know that any team that trades for him won't be eligible to receive a draft pick as compensation.
What a horrible show that must be. Glad tonight is the only time I've watched
Sox and Rocks said:
Well Reynolds (who must struggle to remember the breath) if they didn't miss out on signing him, then they wouldn't be trading him.
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN · 1m
Breaking News: Boston Celtics acquire Red Sox Jon Lester in three team trade. Celtics also get an unprotected 2016 first round pick from the Sacramento Kings.
Breaking News: Boston Celtics acquire Red Sox Jon Lester in three team trade. Celtics also get an unprotected 2016 first round pick from the Sacramento Kings.
ehaz said:
I would love to see an Oakland vs. Pittsburgh WS.
It'd be like if things broke right in 1990, with the Bash Brothers and Killer B's facing off.
brandonchristensen said:
Obama lieeeeeddddd, children cried. Or something.
Can we trade Lester already?
If the Cardinals are indeed in on Lester, I'd be curious to know if Masterson might be part of what they're offering. The Red Sox reportedly maintained an interest in him after trading him to Cleveland. Maybe they believe that Farrell and Nieves can help him regain the competitive instinct that Francona says he's lost.
The expectation would be that he's equally interested in returning to Boston. This way the front office gets a couple of months to try to work out a team-friendly contract with him (he doesn't have much leverage, given how he's struggled this year) while the coaching stuff decides whether or not he's fixable. I'm assuming the Red Sox would have made a serious run at signing him this winter anyway if he did in fact reach free agency. Again, given his poor performance this year, he isn't in a position to demand a lot of dollars or years. Does that make sense? I agree that it's counterintuitive for a weak team and a strong team to exchange pending free agents, but this combination of factors--poor recent performance and mutual admiration--could make Masterson undervalued and signable at a (get ready for it) hometown discount.Rasputin said:
I'm not suggesting for a minute that he's the centerpiece of the deal, of course.
I don't think I've ever seen this amount of backlash from a fan base. Not really here since SOSH is an outlier of the overall Sox fanbase. But fans, players, ex players, reporters, even Yankee fans are stunned that Lester is close to being traded. If they do not resign him come November/Decemeber this is going to be one long offseason for John Henry. This is probably just as bad as trading Pedroia would have been, given the history he has with the team and the fan base. You've heard over the last two days about how clutch Lester is in the playoffs or how Jon Lester beat cancer. I'll tell you one thing though. I was sitting about 10 rows up from home plate when Lester no hit the Royals. Very few times have I ever heard Fenway that loud.
I've always looked at 3 people on this roster that you cannot trade for fear of being accosted. Those three are Papi, Pedroia, and Jon Lester. I understand the business and I also understand the reluctance of John Henry in giving out this kind of contract. While the decision isn't the most popular if one of the players brought back approaches the levels or exceeds Lester's performance then all is forgiven. If Lester comes back in November/December all is forgiven.
If they aren't going to work on an extension now then sure it makes sense to move him. But this could have by all accounts been avoided in the spring. That's what's disappointing about all of this.
I've always looked at 3 people on this roster that you cannot trade for fear of being accosted. Those three are Papi, Pedroia, and Jon Lester. I understand the business and I also understand the reluctance of John Henry in giving out this kind of contract. While the decision isn't the most popular if one of the players brought back approaches the levels or exceeds Lester's performance then all is forgiven. If Lester comes back in November/December all is forgiven.
If they aren't going to work on an extension now then sure it makes sense to move him. But this could have by all accounts been avoided in the spring. That's what's disappointing about all of this.
That's apples to oranges. Nomar was different. He was different in the sense that while the fans loved him, he wasn't really willing to stay. Lester never would have sat out of a game vs the Yankees. Lester won two rings with the team and pitched his ass off in the playoffs every year. Nomar was immensely popular but given the fact his teams never made it past a certain point made it an easier pill to swallow. Plus at the time Orlando Cabrera wasn't a bad player either.AlNipper49 said:
You can't really sell the majority of this fan base that they are better off trading Lester because of fatal flaws on the roster 10 months after winning the World Series. They're going to need to bring him back at the end of the season or this fan base is going to explode.
Lester is in the midst of a career year. Nomar was perceived to be both declining and petulant. The situations seem far from identical to me. Also, winning the WS cures a whole lot of ills. The 2014 team seems highly unlikely to do that.
If the Red Sox trade Jon Lester and then sign him in the off season, it will be a huge win in my eyes and I'll eat my criticism of the FO.
If that does not happen, I will view today and the actions leading up to as one of the least understandable set of circumstances in recent Sox history. I mean, I do understand it in that John Henry is on record as to 30 year old pitchers and his apparently rigid approach to them. But in my eyes, the failure to get Lester done was a series of misjudgments and missteps, and I think it could have been easily avoided.
And I think that the faiure to resolve Lester early cast a pall on this season, and is one of the reasons -- though not nearly the only one of course -- for the 2014 fiasco.
Sorry for the rant, but today is shaping up as a pretty dark day. I'm generally quite grateful to the Trio. Three titles. Wow. But this...this I cannot accept.
If that does not happen, I will view today and the actions leading up to as one of the least understandable set of circumstances in recent Sox history. I mean, I do understand it in that John Henry is on record as to 30 year old pitchers and his apparently rigid approach to them. But in my eyes, the failure to get Lester done was a series of misjudgments and missteps, and I think it could have been easily avoided.
And I think that the faiure to resolve Lester early cast a pall on this season, and is one of the reasons -- though not nearly the only one of course -- for the 2014 fiasco.
Sorry for the rant, but today is shaping up as a pretty dark day. I'm generally quite grateful to the Trio. Three titles. Wow. But this...this I cannot accept.
The problem is with this thought is NESN. As we have seen in the past fan reaction impacts ratings which is a major hot button. I would never discount this ownership taking fan reaction and bad PR into consideration. It shouldn't be anywhere near the top however.Fred in Lynn said:
Nomar was built up to be the second coming of Ted Williams. Easily their most popular player in at least a decade. Lester is very good but he's nowhere near the star that Nomar was.InsideTheParker said:
Red Sox fans, like most fans, are smart enough to know that players come and go. And accordingly, root for the laundry. There will be no lasting backlash here so long as the fan base perceives the organization as trying to improve the team as rapidly as possible. Will there be a lot of empty seats and poor ratings in August and September - you bet.
I have some nice box seats with some great company for a weekend game this August. The seats are expensive. Given the product on the fact that I'm paying $350 to watch the Sea Dogs play at Fenway, the seats should come with a reach around cause I'm getting screwed. But come February, like most fans, there will be cause for optimism in Fort Myers.
TheoShmeo said:
At some point when the dust settles, we'll have to do a postmortem on the various missteps and misjudgments. I can kind of wrap my head around this rigid approach to dealing with 30+ year old pitchers and long term contracts. But if they take this kind of approach, they need to be aggressive in extending their best young players when they are in their 20s. Obviously, they did that with 2009 when they signed the 25-year old Lester to the 5-year extension + option year (2014). Under the new approach, I imagine that the team would likely have wanted to renegotiate the deal around age 28 and try to buy out the last few years of the deal and extend him to age 32 or 33. I suppose the problem there was that Lester struggled in 2012 and suddenly no longer looked like a potential ace. At that point, the team probably decided to take a wait-and-see approach, and, in doing so led to the current course of events, where the team's conservative approach blows up in their face when 30-year old Jon Lester, pitching in his prime and coming off a stellar postseason performance, turns in a career year. This put them in a situation where they now are talking about high dollars for an asset class they apparently consider higher risk - and have to render a decision without the emotions and other irrational elements that the fanbase and many on this site are feeling. It is really, to some extent, a test in ownership's resolve and confidence in their own risk analysis and willingness to sacrifice both short term gain and the wishes of the fanbase in exchange for long-term risk avoidance.
I know there are many differences in circumstance, but I'm still struggling a bit to understand why the club had no problem signing a 29 year old Pedroia to a 7 year deal, but *seemingly* has a philosophical issue with signing a 30 year old Lester to a 5 year deal.
I know, I know, batters, pitchers, etc. But it's not like there are NO quality starters age 30+, and it's not like no batter declined in his early 30s.
Sorry if I'm not adding anything constructive, just confused by this situation.
I know, I know, batters, pitchers, etc. But it's not like there are NO quality starters age 30+, and it's not like no batter declined in his early 30s.
Sorry if I'm not adding anything constructive, just confused by this situation.
Failure to get Lester extended earlier should not be surprising at all. Lester was a below average pitcher by many common metrics for the previous 2 seasons.TheoShmeo said:
If they'd offered him a huge deal before the season and he pitched like 2012 this year they'd be getting crucified.
People are acting as if the Lester we're watching now is the guy that's been there all along. It's simply not true. Coming into this year Lester was a pitcher in very obvious decline who ran off a hot stretch at the right time. Would you hand a huge contract to someone like that?
The first part I agree and disagree with. Sox fans looked at Nomar as the next Ted Williams it was also enhanced by the fact that the Yankees had Jeter and Seattle had A-Rod. Really a golden age for SS. Now here is where I disagree with. Lester had more of a connection with the fan base. Between the cancer and two World Series titles. Nomar never brought that title to Fenway and was known for his surliness once Jimmy Williams left town. He was also showing some signs of declining. Sure, Nomar was the subject of those annoying Boston skits on SNL but I don't think the bond was ever that strong as it was with Lester. Certainly not as strong as it is with Ortiz. I think given the timing and how we have seen this guy rise, fall, and rise again all in a Sox uniform makes him a unique case. I just hope the front office knows what it's doing and gives the man his money in free agency. Sure, he could fall off a next year but I think those chances are extremely low. Remember that the CC contract (the first one) worked out rather well for the Yankees but the difference was CC threw 120 pitches a night for many years. The Sox have often been careful with their pitchers. If Lester was 33-35 we might not have this discussion but this is a 30 year old LHP that is nails in the post season and has been great since Farrell came back.Trautwein said:
You get this type of player for October. In 2011 he was average and 2012 he was horrible. Ever since Farrell returned Lester has been great. The Sox need to have a plan that does not include throwing a ton of money at Mad Max or James Shields. If he really wanted Homer Bailey money there is zero excuse for that not to get done. A declining Jon Lester at 35 is still worth more than Homer Bailey.
8slim said:
If Lester could be had for 8/110, they'd have him by now.
Hendu for Kutch said:
I'm really curious which "common metrics" you would produce to show that Lester was a below average pitcher in any season but 2012. And even then he was better than average in FIP- and xFIP-, and only worse than average in SIERA by the skin of his teeth (league 4.00, Lester 4.01).
I went to bed about 1:30 this morning and figured I'd sleep away half of the then remaining deadline clock time. At that point, I reasoned, someone would have to have been dealt. Nope. This really is going to go down to the last couple of hours, isn't it?
Are pharmacies in New England running as low on Prozac and Xanax as supermarkets do with bread and milk leading up to a snowstorm?
Are pharmacies in New England running as low on Prozac and Xanax as supermarkets do with bread and milk leading up to a snowstorm?
Does anyone doubt that we'll pay market or slightly above AAV on a 3-4 year deal but are likely at odds over length 6 years and above?
Why wouldn't it? Most negotiations of significance go down to the wire. Only late this afternoon, will the Red Sox know what everyone's last/best offer is. Only when there's no time to play one team off another will the Sox or a trading partner know each other's bottom lines. Until that point, there's every reason for the Sox to sit tight and continue working the phones.Yaz4Ever said:
And you know this how?? All reports leading up to this really say otherwise. They could have signed him in the spring and didn't. I mean again if they get someone like Josh Bell + back for Lester today and Lester comes back as a FA then clearly this is one of those drunken gambles that you make at a blackjack table around 4 AM that makes you a ton of profit. I really hope this is the case.Curll said:
As for the deal itself give him 5/115 and put in a performance based option for the 6th year. Done
You can go read the earlier thread from March/April/May. Most posters felt 2012 was an outlier and his 10 game crappy stretch in 2013 was an outlier and that he was worth at least a five year contract worth an AAV of 20M or more. This was before his performance this year backed up that thinking. You may end up being right, along with a few others like EE.Hendu for Kutch said:
It is risky to spend money on older pitchers. Yes. Somebody please show me which type of player can be signed to a substantial contract with little
risk, and give me an example of a couple the Red Sox might sign. To me this guy was as safe a signing as there is out there.
I get all of that. I meant they apparently aren't going to do anything until then, even seemingly small moves like Gomes or Carp. Doubront doesn't count.Trautwein's Degree said:
Lester's side never made an offer, never presented numbers to the Sox side from saying they'd take 'market value'.Tyrone Biggums said:
All "reports" saying the Sox could have signed Lester for x are false. The Sox never got a number from Lester's side and his agency tossed those numbers out to reporters in hopes of starting a conversation in the $120M range and moving up to $144. Lester's agency thinks he can get $155M+ on the market, and they're probably right.
Who knows. We've seen this in the past, the Red Sox front office despite being capable is pretty small. A major deal has a way of eating up a lot of time and resource. Nothing the Sox are going to get for Gomes or Carp is going to be worth a damn. They can deal those guys before the waiver deadline if need be.Yaz4Ever said:
So, he's deleted it since, but Gammons accidentally Tweeted what was apparently supposed to be a pair of DMs this morning around 5:30. I don't know how to screenshot from my phone, but here's what they said:
TWEET 1 (5:27): Great hearing from you, Alex. I think he gets traded today, maybe St Louis, John Henry, ever the Hedge Fund guy, is adamant about not gi ...
TWEET 2 (5:27): contracts in their 30's long term deals. I'll reach out at the beginning of the week
TWEET 1 (5:27): Great hearing from you, Alex. I think he gets traded today, maybe St Louis, John Henry, ever the Hedge Fund guy, is adamant about not gi ...
TWEET 2 (5:27): contracts in their 30's long term deals. I'll reach out at the beginning of the week
There were also reports that he said to teammates that he would have signed for $1 more than the Homer Bailey deal (6/$105) if offered earlier.Curll said:
- Status