He certainly will not be close to an ace, but as a former Division 1 pitcher for four years, I really like Joe Kelly on many levels (besides his last name). I actually think that he could be a 12-15 win pitcher for the RS this coming year.
Who's Your choice for Sox Top of the Rotation Ace?
- Thread starter bankshot1
- Start date
EricFeczko said:
Just a thought, is there any chance this is a pitch classification artifact? As in, all his pitches decline in velocity slightly, but many of his slower fastballs are now classified as other pitches so that the remaining pool of fastballs has a higher average velocity.
In general I'd prefer to see the Sox leverage their financial advantages by splurging for a FA rather than trading talent; but I don't really like Shields or Scherzer for what I expect them to get paid. If one of them came cheap (Shields at 4/90, or Scherzer for the Lester offer), I'd reconsider but I just don't see it happening. So...
I voted for Hamels, but only if they can base the deal around Kelly and/or Miley... maybe Owens. If it's gonna take one of Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart, just ride it out and upgrade during the year or next offseason. This could also work for a lesser upgrade like Cashner. Didn't really consider Cueto given that the Reds reportedly wanted to move one of their FA-to-be SPs and have done so; however if they'd like some rotation certainty going forward, which Kelly or Miley would provide, could also explore that route.
Essentially, if they can upgrade the top of the rotation by trading from depth, do it; if it would take an elite prospect, hold off. In that regard, Cherington's really improved their bargaining position from a day ago.
I voted for Hamels, but only if they can base the deal around Kelly and/or Miley... maybe Owens. If it's gonna take one of Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart, just ride it out and upgrade during the year or next offseason. This could also work for a lesser upgrade like Cashner. Didn't really consider Cueto given that the Reds reportedly wanted to move one of their FA-to-be SPs and have done so; however if they'd like some rotation certainty going forward, which Kelly or Miley would provide, could also explore that route.
Essentially, if they can upgrade the top of the rotation by trading from depth, do it; if it would take an elite prospect, hold off. In that regard, Cherington's really improved their bargaining position from a day ago.
Voted other, primarily because I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sox go "aceless," either adding another second teir guy or just rolling into ST with what they have (and maybe hoping for good Buchholz).
I like the trade candidates better than he FA options, who just don't look like good options based on how the Lester negotiations played out.
I like the trade candidates better than he FA options, who just don't look like good options based on how the Lester negotiations played out.
Keeping with the spirit of the title of the thread...my "choice" would be Hideki Kuroda.
He's shown a penchant for signing one-year deals which, given the FO's commitment to flexibility, would be a nice fit. Just googling around, the conventional wisdom based on comments he (or his agent) has made seems to be that he'll either re-sign with NYY for one year, pitch in Japan, or retire. But, the CW is often wrong and athletes say crazy shit all of the time so who knows.
He's shown a penchant for signing one-year deals which, given the FO's commitment to flexibility, would be a nice fit. Just googling around, the conventional wisdom based on comments he (or his agent) has made seems to be that he'll either re-sign with NYY for one year, pitch in Japan, or retire. But, the CW is often wrong and athletes say crazy shit all of the time so who knows.
Not sure the Red Sox are going to get an "ace" at this point. Seems like they're making many small bets instead of pushing their chips into the table.
That said, I brought it up in another thread, but if you really want an ace what do people think about Cliff Lee?
Yeah, he's 36 and he's hurt -- a forearm strain whose severity I don't understand -- and the Phillies are apparently impossible to trade with. So, is that the end of the thought experiment? Because in favor:
1. He's "only" owed $25M in 2015 with a $27.5M club option for '16 (or a $12.5M buyout). It's a very short-term albeit high value commitment for a guy who (before this year) hadn't had an fWAR below 4.8 since 2007... And even in 81 IP while hurt this year managed a 3.01 xFIP and 1.7 fWAR.
2. He remains one of the league's legitimate "aces" when healthy. He had an incredible year in 2013: 222 IP with a 2.87 ERA (2.78 xFIP) and a ridiculous 222/32 K/BB ratio.
3. He wants to win right now, and therefore there's no way he wants to stay on the 2015 Phillies. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/28/cliff-lee-plans-to-retire-once-his-contract-with-the-phillies-is-up/.
4. How many other teams are realistically in the mix for him? In 2013 Heyman reported that the Sox were "the one player for Cliff Lee."
It's not likely, to be sure. And if Ruining Tomorrow, Jr. really would demand Betts or Xander in return, then it's obviously not happening. But the Sox can afford him AND have prospects to spare, and eventually the Phillies have to come to terms with reality, right?
Edit: I added a link to the Heyman piece.
That said, I brought it up in another thread, but if you really want an ace what do people think about Cliff Lee?
Yeah, he's 36 and he's hurt -- a forearm strain whose severity I don't understand -- and the Phillies are apparently impossible to trade with. So, is that the end of the thought experiment? Because in favor:
1. He's "only" owed $25M in 2015 with a $27.5M club option for '16 (or a $12.5M buyout). It's a very short-term albeit high value commitment for a guy who (before this year) hadn't had an fWAR below 4.8 since 2007... And even in 81 IP while hurt this year managed a 3.01 xFIP and 1.7 fWAR.
2. He remains one of the league's legitimate "aces" when healthy. He had an incredible year in 2013: 222 IP with a 2.87 ERA (2.78 xFIP) and a ridiculous 222/32 K/BB ratio.
3. He wants to win right now, and therefore there's no way he wants to stay on the 2015 Phillies. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/28/cliff-lee-plans-to-retire-once-his-contract-with-the-phillies-is-up/.
4. How many other teams are realistically in the mix for him? In 2013 Heyman reported that the Sox were "the one player for Cliff Lee."
It's not likely, to be sure. And if Ruining Tomorrow, Jr. really would demand Betts or Xander in return, then it's obviously not happening. But the Sox can afford him AND have prospects to spare, and eventually the Phillies have to come to terms with reality, right?
Edit: I added a link to the Heyman piece.
dynomite said:
Lee is interesting because he's great when healthy, but sort of impossible to talk about, because without knowledge of the prognosis for his forearm injury, we're left at an impasse.
I can't see Philly selling so low on Lee atm, given his huge question mark status and the probability that anybody biting would likely be looking for Philly to eat a substantial chunk of his contract.
He could however make for an interesting mid season/deadline dump in the event he does turn it around. 200 innings pitched in 2015 guarantees his $27.5m club option for 2016, which likely hinders any hopeful return beyond the select amount of teams willing/able take on the $35-40m or so he'll still be owed.
He could however make for an interesting mid season/deadline dump in the event he does turn it around. 200 innings pitched in 2015 guarantees his $27.5m club option for 2016, which likely hinders any hopeful return beyond the select amount of teams willing/able take on the $35-40m or so he'll still be owed.
I voted for Hamels and would still love that idea if it didn't involve our "untouchables". However, after reading this thread, I think Cliff Lee is sounding like a great idea. Amaro is impossible to deal with, but he accepted an actual "realistic" offer for Rollins, and I see Lee as similar to Rollins in that they are older guys nearing the end of the contract. I think Amaro is holding out for the unrealistic home run deal for Hamels because he is younger, and the fan base "expects" Hamels to bring the best return. They weren't expecting a huge return for Rollins, and he got moved. If Amaro accepts a "normal" offer for Lee, I am really liking that idea. His salary is a little high, but we have financial flexibility and it is only for 2 years.
Regarding Lee:
Since 2010 there have been 41 seasons of starting pitchers aged 36-40 who had at least 70 innings pitched. I'm using 2010 as an artificial date as an estimate when PED's started to phase out, aging pitchers started to break down/lose effectiveness earlier, and offense began to decline.
7 of these pitchers earned 3 WAR or higher (about 5 million below 25 earned). Kuroda had 3 of those seasons, Colon, Burnett, Dickey and Carpenter had one each. Uehara! had one of those seasons as well as a reliever. There aren't many recent instances of pitchers in their mid 30's coming back from injury and "earning" their money so to speak. I can't think of any offhand who had forearm issues to boot.
Comparing these numbers to 2002-2005 there were 24 of these seasons (though only 10 from 2006-2009)
OTOH - 26 of those 41 seasons, pitchers managed an xFIP under 4.00 and were, in general lower tier guys like Miley. If the Phillies subsidized Lee and the Sox paid $15 mill, I'd consider that deal if he somewhat resembled his former self.
I think best case, he's Chris Carpenter, and worst case he's Roy Halladay.
Since 2010 there have been 41 seasons of starting pitchers aged 36-40 who had at least 70 innings pitched. I'm using 2010 as an artificial date as an estimate when PED's started to phase out, aging pitchers started to break down/lose effectiveness earlier, and offense began to decline.
7 of these pitchers earned 3 WAR or higher (about 5 million below 25 earned). Kuroda had 3 of those seasons, Colon, Burnett, Dickey and Carpenter had one each. Uehara! had one of those seasons as well as a reliever. There aren't many recent instances of pitchers in their mid 30's coming back from injury and "earning" their money so to speak. I can't think of any offhand who had forearm issues to boot.
Comparing these numbers to 2002-2005 there were 24 of these seasons (though only 10 from 2006-2009)
OTOH - 26 of those 41 seasons, pitchers managed an xFIP under 4.00 and were, in general lower tier guys like Miley. If the Phillies subsidized Lee and the Sox paid $15 mill, I'd consider that deal if he somewhat resembled his former self.
I think best case, he's Chris Carpenter, and worst case he's Roy Halladay.
I was mentioning the idea of Lee to a friend just yesterday. Depending on the prospect return I would absolutely be on board. I think he can still be good if his injuries stop derailing him (granted, this could be a big "if"). Philly should be looking to get rid of him since he's older and they aren't going anywhere this year. I also like the flexibility he'd bring us since he'd only be here on a 2-year deal. Worth considering.
Old Hickory goes crazy with a Special Persons™ sploogefest, but has an interesting read on the topic:
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-bolster-starting-rotation-in-lesters-absence/
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-bolster-starting-rotation-in-lesters-absence/
Really great Gammons article, and probably the best insight into the perspective of the Sox front office that we're going to get.
After reading that, I really do think the Sox are planning to head into 2015 with the current rotation. The Sox seem to believe that Kelly, Miley, and Porcello are all going to be very good MLB starters next year, and are willing to see what they can get out of Buchholz/Masterson/the kids and then take stock in July.
I sure hope they're right.
After reading that, I really do think the Sox are planning to head into 2015 with the current rotation. The Sox seem to believe that Kelly, Miley, and Porcello are all going to be very good MLB starters next year, and are willing to see what they can get out of Buchholz/Masterson/the kids and then take stock in July.
I sure hope they're right.
dynomite said:
I don't think they're done. Too many questions at the back of the rotation; they have the pieces to acquire at the very least one more high-upside SP.
This is the problem. Given that he turned down a 6 year/$144 million offer from the Tigers earlier this season, which is almost double the one you mention, 99% is low.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
But in reality deals for 5+ years are just hard to dope out and feel comfortable with.
That's in part why I argue for Cliff Lee above, who represents the kind of high AAV/very short deal that people around here seem to prefer.
Can someone explain to me what "It" Gammons is referring to that "may rush Deven Marrero to the majors in June"?dynomite said:
The added pressure on Xander because of Ben's addition of so many extreme groundball pitchers.InsideTheParker said:
Not exactly sure where Xander would play in this scenario, but that's what I took it to mean.
I am assuming we get a window from the Nats for an extension and Margot, Blake, Brian, Matt, and maybe (d)even Marrero, are also not included.Drek717 said:
I should probably add Devers and Erod too though. You do have to offer quality to get quality back though, so Owens is probably necessary.
Interesting thought. But the groundballers (Miley/Porcello/etc.) are all SPs who'll be out of the game by the 8th for the most part, right?geoduck no quahog said:
Why would Zimmerman sign an extension unless the Sox offered a crazy contract, like at least Scherzer money? He'd be stupid to.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
dynomite said:
Are you suggesting that ground ball pitchers are more likely to exit early than non-ground ball pitchers? If so, why? I would think the opposite as the ability to draw weak contact can lead to a lot of really quick innings.
It just doesn't happen in the real world. Who is the last big name pitcher who actually did this? I can't think of one.ehaz said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I assumed dynomite's suggestion was directed toward a strategy like using Marrero or another defense-first starter to play behind the GB-heavy starters, which then opens up the possibility of sliding Hanley in from LF after using a higher-OPS PH in the late innings of a close contest. It also would make it easier to trade X.
Not that I advocate building the team's strategy along those lines, but that's what I thought he meant.
Excellent point.dynomite said:
Reading between the lines of the Gammons article:
With the Sox signing ground ball pitchers and...
if Xander hits and fields like last season, and if Marrero hits above .700 ops in AAA, then they may move Xander for a #1pitcher by mid-season.
Lots of 'ifs' there...
Great to hear Xander is at API working on his footwork, hopefully Pedey is riding him hard and developing some chemistry.
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
Hamels signed his extension in July, before reaching FA. But that was for market value, not a discount
It also wasn't during a "window," with a new team, after a trade. That's the concept that keeps getting throw around here.BellhornIsGod said:
In regards to Zimmermann, I think we're starting to see some teams assume the risk of bringing aboard a one-year rental before the season starts, factoring in the eventual draft pick compensation as part of the equation. But, as seen in the Oakland-White Sox deal, the cost for such a player isn't the premium being suggested by some posts here.
The key evaluative factor in this particular case is whether Washington has its eyes on Scherzer. If they do, then a Zimmermann trade makes sense if they can recoup something needed elsewhere on the roster.
The key evaluative factor in this particular case is whether Washington has its eyes on Scherzer. If they do, then a Zimmermann trade makes sense if they can recoup something needed elsewhere on the roster.
Wonder what it would take to sign Sherzer on a 3 or 4 year deal. He is looking for 8/$200 right? So what if the Sox offered 4/$120? Would that be enough? 4/$130? At what level would it not make sense for the Sox?
This is the real issue with signing both Panda and Hanley. What do you do if Xander is hitting well, but playing atrocious defense? 3B and LF are taken, and there isn't really anywhere else to put him, so you almost have to trade him in that scenario if you can't live with the SS defense.benhogan said:
If the AAV is high enough? If he makes 4/$130 then he "only" has to make 4/$70 on his next deal.
You are 99% likely correct though, at 30 years old a 4 year deal would be risky. Even if he "only" gets Lester's deal it is probably better for him than 4/$120 or $130
You are 99% likely correct though, at 30 years old a 4 year deal would be risky. Even if he "only" gets Lester's deal it is probably better for him than 4/$120 or $130
He compared Vaz to Lucroy in there as well and I think it's inevitable that they are going to eventually have to pick one of those two elite catchers to go with and trade the other to fill a need.
That need right now is that solitary hole at the top of the rotation. Selling Swihart would be a trading of an asset at it's absolutely peak value. Keeping Betts Bogaerts and not having Vaz suffer JBJ level pressure with a similar prospect riding up his behind. ( I realize there is not way of saying Betts rocketing through the system and outplaying/replacing JBJ actually caused any of JBJ's struggles. All I'm saying is they could have replaced struggling JBJ sooner than they did and I'd rather not have the same choice/potential headache if Swihart is tearing up AAA and maybe' Vaz's bat is maybe not yet hitting it's averagish projection. As it is this Marrero buzz about his glove seems to ignore his yet to develop bat.)
The Nationals don't need a catcher but I would be shopping Swihart to get whatever package the Nats want for Zimmerman. Marrero Owens and Swihart would be tough to turn down wouldn't it ? It's just the Red Sox wouldn't do that without some type of inclination that Zimmerman would take some extension at 7 for 170 ? He's younger than Lester and the Nationals might be inclined to grant a rarely done extension. It also comes down to the Nationals won't be able to sign Stras, Zimm and Fister and Fister is probably more prone to not completely break the bank.
EDIT
That's also 2 of the top four prospects that are classified as "impact/elite" and the insurance plan for X's potential need to move off the position and a projectable lefty under control. On top of a 165-170 mill dollar MV contract. So yeah it would hurt but make the 2015 2016 2017 teams really all set at the number 1 rotation spot at the least.
That need right now is that solitary hole at the top of the rotation. Selling Swihart would be a trading of an asset at it's absolutely peak value. Keeping Betts Bogaerts and not having Vaz suffer JBJ level pressure with a similar prospect riding up his behind. ( I realize there is not way of saying Betts rocketing through the system and outplaying/replacing JBJ actually caused any of JBJ's struggles. All I'm saying is they could have replaced struggling JBJ sooner than they did and I'd rather not have the same choice/potential headache if Swihart is tearing up AAA and maybe' Vaz's bat is maybe not yet hitting it's averagish projection. As it is this Marrero buzz about his glove seems to ignore his yet to develop bat.)
The Nationals don't need a catcher but I would be shopping Swihart to get whatever package the Nats want for Zimmerman. Marrero Owens and Swihart would be tough to turn down wouldn't it ? It's just the Red Sox wouldn't do that without some type of inclination that Zimmerman would take some extension at 7 for 170 ? He's younger than Lester and the Nationals might be inclined to grant a rarely done extension. It also comes down to the Nationals won't be able to sign Stras, Zimm and Fister and Fister is probably more prone to not completely break the bank.
EDIT
That's also 2 of the top four prospects that are classified as "impact/elite" and the insurance plan for X's potential need to move off the position and a projectable lefty under control. On top of a 165-170 mill dollar MV contract. So yeah it would hurt but make the 2015 2016 2017 teams really all set at the number 1 rotation spot at the least.
The Nationals, right now, even without having made any significant moves, are probably the on-paper best team in the NL (if not all of MLB). There are no guarantees in baseball, but they can reasonably expect to contend for a World Series in 2015. They are not going to trade their best or second-best pitcher unless he's providing a solution at a position of need both now and in the long term. The Rad Sox have such a player in Betts, who would be their Opening Day second baseman and allow them to move Anthony Rendon to third. Bogaerts might also make sense if they stuck him at third for a year. Otherwise, I'm not sure why the Nationals would want anything the Red Sox are offering. They certainly don't need outfielders, and they don't need young pitching who can't help in 2015 and/or wouldn't be better than their young guys (like Taylor Jordan). I'm not even sure catching is a dire need for them, although I'm sure if BC offered Swihart they'd take him. So unless you're prepared to give up one of those two, maybe three guys, don't bother wishcasting for Zimmermann.
Haha, ships in the night.Snodgrass said:
No, sorry for any confusion, that was in response to the following:
1) Gammons' article has a sort of ambiguous sentence that says "it" could rush Marrero to Majors.
2) InsideTheParker asked what the "it" was.
3) I suggested that re-reading it seems to refer to the presence of all these ground ball pitchers and Xander's defensive growth at SS.
4) Geoduck asked if it meant that Marrero would be a late inning defensive sub.
5) I said that if the issue was to field for these new groundball SPs, they'll be out of the game in the late innings. Not because the groundball starters do anything wrong/differently, just because most SPs are out of the game by the 8th.
Does that make sense?
It's a perfectly reasonable question. Based on this chart, it seems like most of his pitches increased in velocity; not just his fastball:Harry Hooper said:
View attachment 703
I guess its possible that the difference relates to classification between the cutter and the four-seamer, however, I don't think that is the most parsimonious explanation; his offspeed pitches have had a similar increase in velocity as well.
Gammons must be projecting Marrero into a role similar to Iglesias who was initially a late inning replacement for Lowrie and Aviles.
The potential problem with X is that he does seem to take his defensive struggles into the batters box. I hope they play him a lot of innings in ST to get him off to a solid start in the field.
And as for Swihart his floor is probably close to Vasquez' ceiling. If they trade a catcher it will be Vasquez.
The potential problem with X is that he does seem to take his defensive struggles into the batters box. I hope they play him a lot of innings in ST to get him off to a solid start in the field.
And as for Swihart his floor is probably close to Vasquez' ceiling. If they trade a catcher it will be Vasquez.
I believe that finding an Opening Day 2B of the caliber of Betts - a guy that can step into a 96 win team at MLB minimum salary - is very valuable to the Nats. The Nats may well win it all in 2015, but I believe their projected salary growth as currently constituted is unsustainable after next year. They can make a move or two - GFIN - without blowing it up in 2016. Isn't that what everyone wishes they could do?Danny_Darwin said:
my answer: None of the Above.
Porcello would be my #1 today, but there is a ton of time between now and Opening Day. Lets see who is healthy and pitching well in the Spring.
Scherzer and Shields will be expensive, expect long term deals, and are on the wrong side of 30. The front office has made it clear to us, in the Lester negotiations, that they will not outbid the field for this type of pitcher. So I don't see either being signed by the Sox.
Zimmerman and Fister will probably stay with Washington to start the season since they are serious WS contenders in 2015. Rizzo seems to win most trades, so can't imagine we're sending our WMBs, Ranaudos, Wrights of the world for something special.
Cueto is cheap and the Reds have already dealt 2/5s of their rotation. He is staying put for now, the Reds will try to compete in '15, if they fall behind early maybe they deal Cueto at the trade deadline (like we did with Lester in '14)
Hamels has Amaro attached looking for a kings ransom for a pitcher priced fairly/OK on the wrong side of 30, with a no-trade clause attached. Too many hoops to get through for him. Good luck Phils...
Advanced projection systems (Steamers) and Vegas both see the Sox in strong contention with this roster 'as is'. So lets improve the pen a bit (move Mujica/ add Badenhop, add Davis or Holland for blocked prospects?), keep our most promising prospects-let them ripen, and retain payroll flexibility.
If we are in contention in June/July, go hot and heavy after the best starting pitcher available. He can be our ACE for a deep playoff run.
Porcello would be my #1 today, but there is a ton of time between now and Opening Day. Lets see who is healthy and pitching well in the Spring.
Scherzer and Shields will be expensive, expect long term deals, and are on the wrong side of 30. The front office has made it clear to us, in the Lester negotiations, that they will not outbid the field for this type of pitcher. So I don't see either being signed by the Sox.
Zimmerman and Fister will probably stay with Washington to start the season since they are serious WS contenders in 2015. Rizzo seems to win most trades, so can't imagine we're sending our WMBs, Ranaudos, Wrights of the world for something special.
Cueto is cheap and the Reds have already dealt 2/5s of their rotation. He is staying put for now, the Reds will try to compete in '15, if they fall behind early maybe they deal Cueto at the trade deadline (like we did with Lester in '14)
Hamels has Amaro attached looking for a kings ransom for a pitcher priced fairly/OK on the wrong side of 30, with a no-trade clause attached. Too many hoops to get through for him. Good luck Phils...
Advanced projection systems (Steamers) and Vegas both see the Sox in strong contention with this roster 'as is'. So lets improve the pen a bit (move Mujica/ add Badenhop, add Davis or Holland for blocked prospects?), keep our most promising prospects-let them ripen, and retain payroll flexibility.
If we are in contention in June/July, go hot and heavy after the best starting pitcher available. He can be our ACE for a deep playoff run.
It really has to be Hamels:
- Scherzer will cost too much in dollars and years. There is zero chance that the Sox will go beyond the Lester offer (6/135) and that won't get it done.
- In a vacuum, Shields would be acceptable but his current age and the likelihood of a Lester-based "market re-set" is going to move his contract into the 5/100 range. It will be close to Hamels money and years (5/114), but starting at age 33 instead of 31. I just don't see the Sox agreeing to pay this guy +$20M each in his age 37 and 38 seasons.
- Cueto/Zimmerman are younger, but they will cost prospects and you only get them for one year. The odds these guys agree to sign some sort of team friendly extension immediately after a trade (or even before) when free agency is so close (and visions of the Lester contract dance in their heads) is close to zero.
I keep seeing that the Red Sox have 4 untouchable prospects, but the real question should be this: How many available, playoff proven Number #1 starters are out there versus the number of good-to-great prospects? Top Prospects are in the 50-100 range (all teams) but available #1s can be counted on the fingers of one hand. You take the current Red Sox roster and add Hamels and that's a preseason World Series favorite. Without him...well probably in the hunt, but now you are counting on at least two of the existing staff to raise their games all year and then follow that by stepping it up another notch in the playoffs. Could happen but there's a lot of wishing and hoping in that scenario.
And if that doesn't work, well David Ortiz is one year older and the Sox are facing the same need for a Number 1 in the 2015 off-season. Except now the price for top starters is probably even higher. If it costs 2 of the 4 "untouchables" to solve the problem right now? You pull the trigger.
- Scherzer will cost too much in dollars and years. There is zero chance that the Sox will go beyond the Lester offer (6/135) and that won't get it done.
- In a vacuum, Shields would be acceptable but his current age and the likelihood of a Lester-based "market re-set" is going to move his contract into the 5/100 range. It will be close to Hamels money and years (5/114), but starting at age 33 instead of 31. I just don't see the Sox agreeing to pay this guy +$20M each in his age 37 and 38 seasons.
- Cueto/Zimmerman are younger, but they will cost prospects and you only get them for one year. The odds these guys agree to sign some sort of team friendly extension immediately after a trade (or even before) when free agency is so close (and visions of the Lester contract dance in their heads) is close to zero.
I keep seeing that the Red Sox have 4 untouchable prospects, but the real question should be this: How many available, playoff proven Number #1 starters are out there versus the number of good-to-great prospects? Top Prospects are in the 50-100 range (all teams) but available #1s can be counted on the fingers of one hand. You take the current Red Sox roster and add Hamels and that's a preseason World Series favorite. Without him...well probably in the hunt, but now you are counting on at least two of the existing staff to raise their games all year and then follow that by stepping it up another notch in the playoffs. Could happen but there's a lot of wishing and hoping in that scenario.
And if that doesn't work, well David Ortiz is one year older and the Sox are facing the same need for a Number 1 in the 2015 off-season. Except now the price for top starters is probably even higher. If it costs 2 of the 4 "untouchables" to solve the problem right now? You pull the trigger.