What does the rotation in 2015 look like without Lester?

[tomdeplonty]

Like many posting here, I hope the team is planning, and is able, to build the starting rotation around Lester in 2015.
 
But as we get deeper into the season, there is a sense that the price is increasing, and might already be beyond what the Red Sox are willing to pay. So the question arises: what's the best plan if we can't sign Lester?
 
Is it an elite FA? A combination of more modest deals? Where do Buchholz, Doubront, Workman, and RDLR fit into the plan? How important is it to extend Lackey (or not)?
 

 

[NoXInNixon]

If the price for Lester is more than $20M a year for more than 4 years (which it appears it is) I would rather see them sign Scherzer for a little bit more and get a much better pitcher. With the financial flexibility they have due to a lot of rookies coming up, they should break the bank for elite talent. Lester is not elite. So I'm hoping for
 
Scherzer
Lackey
Then pick three from (Buchholz, Doubront, RDLR, Workman, Ranaudo, Wright)
 
That's the rotation of a playoff team, if the offense can get fixed.

 

[MakMan44]

Why is Scherzer anymore elite than Lester?

 

[NoXInNixon]

Why is Scherzer anymore elite than Lester?

I suppose it depends if you believe that Lester's performance this contract year is what you expect going forward, when he was only pretty good in 2013 and awful in 2012. Whereas Scherzer is the reigning Cy Young had has a strikeout rate better than 10 per 9 innings for three years running. Scherzer has been consistently great for three years. Lester has been inconsistent. I'd rather pay a few extra million for consistency.

 

[jsinger121]

I'd rather avoid a Boras client in Max Scherzer and just sign Lester instead who will likely cost less than Scherzer.

 

[MakMan44]

I suppose it depends if you believe that Lester's performance this contract year is what you expect going forward, when he was only pretty good in 2013 and awful in 2012. Whereas Scherzer is the reigning Cy Young had has a strikeout rate better than 10 per 9 innings for three years running. Scherzer has been consistently great for three years. Lester has been inconsistent. I'd rather pay a few extra million for consistency.

Lester's 2nd half in 2013 pretty much lines up with what he's been doing this season, so it is possible to believe that he has taken a real step forward.
 
Regardless, Lester has been pretty consistent if you discount 2012 (and his FIP/xFIP suggest he pitched better than his ERA). He's been worth at least 3 WAR, at/Over 200 IP (outside of 2011-191 IP), had sub 4 ERA & FIP since 2008. He nearly hit that with xFIP too (4.03 xFIP in 2008.)
 
Between the Cy Young, being a Boras client, and other teams raising the bidding I'm uninterested in overpaying Scherzer. This isn't to suggest that you pay Lester whatever he wants, but he is a known, arguably consistent, quantity that I think should be priority #1 when it comes to the rotation in 2015 and beyond. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

Why is Scherzer going to be let go by Detroit? Sure, they already have $98 million committed to next year's team but are they really going to let Scherzer go?

 

[MakMan44]

Shoot, that totally sidetracked the entire point of thread. Apologies. 
 
Back on topic, as consistent as Lester has been (IMO), Buch and Doubront are nearly on the opposite end of the spectrum. Whether it be a pitcher like Scherzer, or trading for someone similar, I think getting an #1 or #2 pitcher to head the rotation is an absolute must if the team wants to compete in 2015. 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

If the Sox aren't going to break the bank for Lester, I don't see them doing it for Scherzer either.  He's 6 months younger and arguably no better.

 

[NoXInNixon]

The premise of the thread is what the non-Lester options are for 2015. So it's not about Scherzer vs. Lester. But even if you prefer Lester, Scherzer has to be the primary alternative option. Without either of those two, it's hard to see the 2015 rotation being anything other than poor.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I'll again suggest that a trade may be the better route to go than the free-agent market. I threw out some names in another thread, but what do people think of Cole Hamels around these parts? He's said to be available, is the same age as Lester (roughly), similar career track record, and would be signed for another 4/90 after this year (plus a $20 million option for his age-35 season). 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

The premise of the thread is what the non-Lester options are for 2015. So it's not about Scherzer vs. Lester. But even if you prefer Lester, Scherzer has to be the primary alternative option. Without either of those two, it's hard to see the 2015 rotation being anything other than poor.

No, it's easy to see the 2015 rotation as anything but poor.  But it's a big unknown.
 
Good Lackey has the potential to anchor a staff.  Good Buchholz has the potential to anchor a staff.  Any 2 or 3 of the kids could turn out to be very good, very soon.  There is the potential for the rotation to be excellent.  Of course, there is also the (not small) chance that some or all of this doesn't happen, but that might be the chance that the FO is willing to take, instead of shelling out $150 million.

 

[bosockboy]

Why is Scherzer going to be let go by Detroit? Sure, they already have $98 million committed to next year's team but are they really going to let Scherzer go?

Doesn't seem possible they could carry a third mega contract with Miggy and Verlander's deals on the books for a long time.

 

[MakMan44]

I'll again suggest that a trade may be the better route to go than the free-agent market. I threw out some names in another thread, but what do people think of Cole Hamels around these parts? He's said to be available, is the same age as Lester (roughly), similar career track record, and would be signed for another 4/90 after this year (plus a $20 million option for his age-35 season). 

That's interesting but I haven't seen a thing that suggests he's available. 
 
I don't know if I'd be willing to pay what Amaro would want for Hamels in any case, but he's a good name to put out there. 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Doesn't seem possible they could carry a third mega contract with Miggy and Verlander's deals on the books for a long time.

They already offered him 6/144.  But again, we're veering off topic.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

That's interesting but I haven't seen a thing that suggests he's available. 
 
I don't know if I'd be willing to pay what Amaro would want for Hamels in any case, but he's a good name to put out there. 

 
Last offseason, but:
http://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/410407376726941696

 

[benhogan]

Without Lester, and if ownership refused to bid for guys in their 30s long term. Then they probably go after Masterson on a short deal, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront and Workman.
 
Rubby, Webster, Ranaudo and probably Henry Owens in the mix for starting depth.
 
I really hope they figure out how to get a deal done with Lester, but I think its a coin toss at this point and every week that passes those pinstripes start bleeding though his uniform.

 

[Rasputin]

The no outsider version is Lackey, Buchholz, Workman and some combination of Doubront, de la Rosa, Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, Wright and maybe Owens.

If everyone performed at the higher end of their expectation, that would be a hell of a staff anchored by a bulldog and a virtuoso and powered by good young depth before we really even talk about Owens.

But we would be looking at the possibility of losing a second straight year to rookie development.The first tendency is to look to the free agent market but if we aren't paying Lester, we probably aren't paying Scherzer or any of the other big free agents either.

We really need to sign Lester and if that means capitulating, paying him more than they think he's worth and paying twenty five million for four shitty years from 2018 to 2021 then we do that and thank our lucky stars that the entire test of our rotation is still in the early arb years.

 

[ivanvamp]

I really hope they figure out how to get a deal done with Lester, but I think its a coin toss at this point and every week that passes those pinstripes start bleeding though his uniform.

This would make me mighty unhappy. And for that reason alone, the Sox should re-sign Lester.

 

[TomRicardo]

The premise of the thread is what the non-Lester options are for 2015. So it's not about Scherzer vs. Lester. But even if you prefer Lester, Scherzer has to be the primary alternative option. Without either of those two, it's hard to see the 2015 rotation being anything other than poor.

 
Without both the rotation will still be good, as it will still be very deep.  What you are going to lack is a front line starter for the playoffs.

 

[mattymatty]

If they're not going to re-sign Lester, then without the best case scenario in the rotation the team won't make the playoffs. They need Lester. But since that's not the topic of this thread, I'll throw this out: improving the team doesn't have to come solely from the rotation. I submit that, should the let Lester walk, they could fill the hole in the rotation from inside the organization and still expect to win if they add wins to the rest of the roster. They could do this by (yes, sorry to beat this horse) trading for Giancarlo Stanton. The problem there is that would cost some significant portion of their farm system which would theoretically make it more difficult to fill out the starting rotation and maintain the kind of depth the organization likes. Maybe for Stanton you live with that and re-add Chris Capuano (or a different version of the same guy). 
 
The point is, there are bodies for the rotation so they don't necessarily need to trade for Hamels or sign Scherzer as they could improve the team in the outfield, at third base, at shortstop, whatever. 

 

[Apisith]

I love the Hamels idea and wonder whether we'd need to give up much for him. Maybe someone like Webster and Workman would get it done. He's as good as Lester and we would have him signed to a contract that'd we'd be happy to give Lester.

 

[smastroyin]

The problem with Scherzer is that he's not going to be "just a little bit more" than 4/80.  With Scherzer you are paying for his peak year last year and a very good but not as good as Jon Lester year this year.  He is a year younger.  The big question on the difference between them is what Lester's 2012 and June of 2013 really mean.  But I think people really suffer from a huge case of grass is greener syndrome on Scherzer.
 
The Hamels contract is not really 4/90.  If he is healthy enough to pitch in 2017 and 2018, it becomes a 5/114 deal.  If he's not, it is either 5/109, or 4/96.  Either you pay the $19 million option to keep him, or you pay a $6 million buyout.  

 

[dcmissle]

Again, Scherzer turned down 144 for 6. The alt scenarios should be reality based.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
The Hamels contract is not really 4/90.  If he is healthy enough to pitch in 2017 and 2018, it becomes a 5/114 deal.  If he's not, it is either 5/109, or 4/96.  Either you pay the $19 million option to keep him, or you pay a $6 million buyout.  

Each permutation of that represents fewer dollars and years than Hamels would get on the open market were he to be a free agent at season's end or than Lester is likely to receive on the open market. (Not that you were necessarily disputing that.)

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Re Hamels: I am not that eager to pay 4/90 plus real talent for a guy who has never pitched in the AL and has a 4.52 ERA, .806 OPS and 30 HR allowed in 175 innings of interleague play. Especially not a LHP making half his starts in Fenway.
 
I'm not saying I wouldn't be interested in adding him, but in this league and park he's most likely a 4+ ERA, #3 starter kind of guy, and I think his current contract plus a couple of top prospects will be too much to pay for that. If we can get him for a bag of balls (relatively speaking), maybe.