SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Possible extension for Lester
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 1, 2014 19:47:37 GMT -5
More props to the OG Lester....in the midst of the great performances and the excitement that brings...Lester is 2nd in the league in K/9 with his 2nd 12 K performance of the year.
Any chance the Sox could re-engage for an extension during the season? The odds are about 25% he re-signs with the Sox after the season. Almost all free agents will leave their teams.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2014 20:26:35 GMT -5
What's interesting is that the big increase in Lester's strikeout rate this year has come from called strikeouts, while his swinging strikeout rate is only a little higher than years past. Here are his strikeout swinging/called from the last few years (data from minorleaguecentral), not including today's start (where he had 4 called strikeouts and 8 swinging strikeouts):
| Swinging strikeout rate
| Called strikeout rate
| 2011 | 15% | 6.1% | 2012 | 13.1% | 4.6% | 2013 | 12.6%
| 6.1% | 2014
| 14.4%
| 11.7%
|
His granular plate discipline numbers back this up. His contact rate of 79.5% this year is an improvement from his last few years (2013: 81.9%, 2012: 90.3%, 2011: 80.3%), but it's still nowhere near his peak (between 2009-10, his contact rate was 76.4%). This bump up in his strikeout rate isn't really driven by hitters swinging-and-missing more, but instead by a lot more called third strikes. Is this trend sustainable? On one hand, I think it's clear his command has been better this year than in years past, and he's been hitting the corners extremely effectively. In particular, he's throwing to his glove side a lot more this year. Compare and contract his heat map in terms of pitches thrown in 2014 to 2011-13 and it's immediately obvious that he's working inside to righties and outside to lefties a lot more than he has in years past (the best way to do this is to have the two links above open in separate tabs and then switch back and forth between them rapidly). A lot of this is due to the reemergence of his cutter, which has looked very good this year. By both Inside Edge pitch values and pitchf/x pitch values, it was one of his best pitches earlier in his career, was awful from 2011-13, and looks to have bounced back this year. The movement and velocity on the pitch hasn't changed much. Instead, the big difference is that he's locating it more outside of the zone this year, and hitters have offered at more of those cutters outside the zone. His contact rate on in-zone cutters and out-of-zone cutters hasn't changed much (hitters are actually making more contact than they have in years past), but because hitters are swinging at more out-of-zone cutters (which they are more likely to swing-and-miss on), he's gotten more swinging strikes on the pitch overall. On one hand, this could be Lester improving his command of the pitch and forcing hitters to chase pitches just outside of the zone. On the other hand, this could be hitters not yet having adjusted to the fact that Lester is throwing more cutters out of the zone than usual (especially to the arm side-- compare 2014 to 2011-13). I also think he's pitched to some friendly strike zones, and he's mainly thrown to David Ross, a pitch-framing wizard who might not be on the team next year. If you look at his heat map with two strikes, he's not really throwing the ball in different locations than he has in years past (compare 2014 with 2011-13) but he's having more of those pitches go for strikes (compare 2014 with 2011-13; especially look at the glove-side pitches (on the right side of the charts), where he's picked up a lot of extra strikes). The hundred million dollar question is this: is this trend Lester learning to pitch with diminished stuff and spotting his pitches (especially his cutter) more effectively, and thus a sustainable improvement in his true talent level? Or is it just some combination of unusually friendly strike zones, David Ross' framing, and the league not yet having adjusted to the change in his pitch locations?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 1, 2014 20:54:19 GMT -5
The hundred million dollar question is this: is this trend Lester learning to pitch with diminished stuff and spotting his pitches (especially his cutter) more effectively, and thus a sustainable improvement in his true talent level? Or is it just some combination of unusually friendly strike zones, David Ross' framing, and the league not yet having adjusted to the change in his pitch locations? He's also on pace to post his best walk total of his career...and his avg fastball is down a tick. I think it is reasonable to believe there is slight re-invention going on here...and while the question of sustainability is relevant....some of the comparison numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2014 21:00:06 GMT -5
Yeah, the real answer is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, and I didn't mean to suggest that it was an either/or. He's posting a career-low in walk rate, but he's doing it while posting a zone% and a first strike rate that are near career-lows, which means he's doing it more with sequencing than just throwing more strikes. Same questions about sustainability exist there.
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 2, 2014 10:56:07 GMT -5
Insider Only piece by Olney basically saying Sox are insane to have not signed him yet. Excerpt: A lot of agents and players will tell you privately that even when their public stance is that they are always ready to listen, they reach a tipping point in the summer before free agency when they decide to test the market. Heck, at this point, Lester probably has about 20 to 22 regular-season starts remaining, and if the Red Sox keep lagging, or keep offering him deals far less than Hamels, Cain or even Homer Bailey, he and his representatives could just decide to wait out the last weeks and test the market.
Which would leave the Red Sox for 2015 and beyond with very little in the way of established starting pitching, despite the fact that Boston actually has incredible financial flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Jun 2, 2014 11:54:20 GMT -5
Insider Only piece by Olney basically saying Sox are insane to have not signed him yet. Excerpt: A lot of agents and players will tell you privately that even when their public stance is that they are always ready to listen, they reach a tipping point in the summer before free agency when they decide to test the market. Heck, at this point, Lester probably has about 20 to 22 regular-season starts remaining, and if the Red Sox keep lagging, or keep offering him deals far less than Hamels, Cain or even Homer Bailey, he and his representatives could just decide to wait out the last weeks and test the market.
Which would leave the Red Sox for 2015 and beyond with very little in the way of established starting pitching, despite the fact that Boston actually has incredible financial flexibility. Is trading and FA going away next year or something? I get it's their job, but manufacturing paranoia like this is why I don't read Olney or Rosenthal. I do like how he handpicked 3 comps who haven't exactly set the world on fire in the early going since pitching under their new deals.
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 2, 2014 12:02:46 GMT -5
The comp of Bailey is germane because he is a clear step down from Lester and yet just got an much larger deal than the Sox offered Lester.
jmei has expressed confidence that this gets done. I think if Sox do not sign him by July 18 (day after the All Star break) then Lester is gone.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 2, 2014 12:31:11 GMT -5
Insider Only piece by Olney basically saying Sox are insane to have not signed him yet. Excerpt: A lot of agents and players will tell you privately that even when their public stance is that they are always ready to listen, they reach a tipping point in the summer before free agency when they decide to test the market. Heck, at this point, Lester probably has about 20 to 22 regular-season starts remaining, and if the Red Sox keep lagging, or keep offering him deals far less than Hamels, Cain or even Homer Bailey, he and his representatives could just decide to wait out the last weeks and test the market.
Which would leave the Red Sox for 2015 and beyond with very little in the way of established starting pitching, despite the fact that Boston actually has incredible financial flexibility. Is trading and FA going away next year or something? I get it's their job, but manufacturing paranoia like this is why I don't read Olney or Rosenthal. I do like how he handpicked 3 comps who haven't exactly set the world on fire in the early going since pitching under their new deals. I don't think is manufacturing paranoia. There really is less of a chance to sign FA's after they've reached the open market. It's a tough decision for the front office.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2014 12:47:09 GMT -5
Insider Only piece by Olney basically saying Sox are insane to have not signed him yet. Excerpt: A lot of agents and players will tell you privately that even when their public stance is that they are always ready to listen, they reach a tipping point in the summer before free agency when they decide to test the market. Heck, at this point, Lester probably has about 20 to 22 regular-season starts remaining, and if the Red Sox keep lagging, or keep offering him deals far less than Hamels, Cain or even Homer Bailey, he and his representatives could just decide to wait out the last weeks and test the market.
Which would leave the Red Sox for 2015 and beyond with very little in the way of established starting pitching, despite the fact that Boston actually has incredible financial flexibility. Is trading and FA going away next year or something? I get it's their job, but manufacturing paranoia like this is why I don't read Olney or Rosenthal. I do like how he handpicked 3 comps who haven't exactly set the world on fire in the early going since pitching under their new deals. I don't think it's paranoia, but rather common sense. Only Scherzer is better than Lester on the open market and the Sox likely aren't going there. Everybody else, including Shields or Bailey, are pitchers that I wouldn't deal Lester for. Lester has handled the Boston market and has been durable all this time and doesn't run from the October spotlight. We don't know how Shields or Bailey would handle Boston but we know how Lester does. If Lester walks then the pressure ratchets on the Sox to outbid the others for guys like Shields or Bailey resulting in one of two scenarios: they overpay the pitcher they try to sign and would have been better off just signing Lester or they don't get a replacement for Lester and the Sox rotation has a humongous hole to fill with very little certainty that it can be filled well, and if you go the trade route, the value for a top notch replacement for Lester would gut your system. So, no I don't think Olney is crying wolf here. Lester is the exactly the type of guy the Sox should spend their money on.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Jun 2, 2014 15:32:59 GMT -5
I don't think it's paranoia, but rather common sense. Only Scherzer is better than Lester on the open market and the Sox likely aren't going there. Everybody else, including Shields or Bailey, are pitchers that I wouldn't deal Lester for. Lester has handled the Boston market and has been durable all this time and doesn't run from the October spotlight. We don't know how Shields or Bailey would handle Boston but we know how Lester does. If Lester walks then the pressure ratchets on the Sox to outbid the others for guys like Shields or Bailey resulting in one of two scenarios: they overpay the pitcher they try to sign and would have been better off just signing Lester or they don't get a replacement for Lester and the Sox rotation has a humongous hole to fill with very little certainty that it can be filled well, and if you go the trade route, the value for a top notch replacement for Lester would gut your system. So, no I don't think Olney is crying wolf here. Lester is the exactly the type of guy the Sox should spend their money on. Well, my point was Olney makes it sound as if the Red Sox have absolutely no contingency plan if Lester were to leave, which I think is ridiculous. Losing Lester does not mean you have to automatically replace him with someone equal or better. They're losing another 'established' guy in Peavy, too. My take: I think Lester has a better than good chance to be a solid contributor in 2015 & 2016. My guess is his production the subsequent three or fours years could be replaced without too much effort. The only reason to think otherwise is if he can sustain better than normal command (this dates back to 2nd half last year). Jmei provided a great post above illustrating why he's been so effective this year. At the same time, he has struggled with his command on occasion - as recently as his previous start in ATL. His pure stuff will not provide enough margin as he ages. So, the question will be whether he continues to go down the path of a Cliff Lee type with excellent command or if he'll revert back to his career norms. Using historical data as a guide, avoiding long term commitments with starters 31+ YO is, more often than not, considered common sense. I really like Lester, even when he was pitching like a #4/#5 as recently as a year ago this time, but signing him to a Hamels-type contract just so you have the security of 'established' pitching does not scream to me as the obvious solution.
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 2, 2014 17:07:49 GMT -5
I don't think it's paranoia, but rather common sense. Only Scherzer is better than Lester on the open market and the Sox likely aren't going there. Everybody else, including Shields or Bailey, are pitchers that I wouldn't deal Lester for. Lester has handled the Boston market and has been durable all this time and doesn't run from the October spotlight. We don't know how Shields or Bailey would handle Boston but we know how Lester does. If Lester walks then the pressure ratchets on the Sox to outbid the others for guys like Shields or Bailey resulting in one of two scenarios: they overpay the pitcher they try to sign and would have been better off just signing Lester or they don't get a replacement for Lester and the Sox rotation has a humongous hole to fill with very little certainty that it can be filled well, and if you go the trade route, the value for a top notch replacement for Lester would gut your system. So, no I don't think Olney is crying wolf here. Lester is the exactly the type of guy the Sox should spend their money on. Well, my point was Olney makes it sound as if the Red Sox have absolutely no contingency plan if Lester were to leave, which I think is ridiculous. Losing Lester does not mean you have to automatically replace him with someone equal or better. They're losing another 'established' guy in Peavy, too. My take: I think Lester has a better than good chance to be a solid contributor in 2015 & 2016. My guess is his production the subsequent three or fours years could be replaced without too much effort. The only reason to think otherwise is if he can sustain better than normal command (this dates back to 2nd half last year). Jmei provided a great post above illustrating why he's been so effective this year. At the same time, he has struggled with his command on occasion - as recently as his previous start in ATL. His pure stuff will not provide enough margin as he ages. So, the question will be whether he continues to go down the path of a Cliff Lee type with excellent command or if he'll revert back to his career norms. Using historical data as a guide, avoiding long term commitments with starters 31+ YO is, more often than not, considered common sense. I really like Lester, even when he was pitching like a #4/#5 as recently as a year ago this time, but signing him to a Hamels-type contract just so you have the security of 'established' pitching does not scream to me as the obvious solution. This point came up earlier in this thread, with me saying the same, but with the caveat of their declarations that they want to stay away from all but the most team friendly long term deals combined with the availability of genuine #2 starters or better in the trade market being very rare, a discernible plan seems less apparent to the interested observer. So Buster's not alone in not seeing a plan without Lester. There aren't a lot of high talent trade options apparent and all the free agent starters after Lester (Shields, Masterson, McCarthy, Santana) are a distinct step below him and will still cost significant money and likely for Shields 4-5 years. And while there are some projectable arms in the system, no one in AA/AAA projects to be a legit #2 starter or better according to the professional scouts. We all loved Rubby's last start but is that - or Webster's last start or Owens' success in AA - something you bet the future of the front of your rotation on when you're not stuck with the budget of Tampa or Oakland or Kansas City? Or does everyone here like Bridge Years?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 2, 2014 17:33:01 GMT -5
This point came up earlier in this thread, with me saying the same, but with the caveat of their declarations that they want to stay away from all but the most team friendly long term deals combined with the availability of genuine #2 starters or better in the trade market being very rare, a discernible plan seems less apparent to the interested observer. So Buster's not alone in not seeing a plan without Lester. There aren't a lot of high talent trade options apparent and all the free agent starters after Lester (Shields, Masterson, McCarthy, Santana) are a distinct step below him and will still cost significant money and likely for Shields 4-5 years. And while there are some projectable arms in the system, no one in AA/AAA projects to be a legit #2 starter or better according to the professional scouts. We all loved Rubby's last start but is that - or Webster's last start or Owens' success in AA - something you bet the future of the front of your rotation on when you're not stuck with the budget of Tampa or Oakland or Kansas City? Or does everyone here like Bridge Years? Yes, but only when we win the World Series during those bridge years
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2014 21:31:59 GMT -5
I don't think it's paranoia, but rather common sense. Only Scherzer is better than Lester on the open market and the Sox likely aren't going there. Everybody else, including Shields or Bailey, are pitchers that I wouldn't deal Lester for. Lester has handled the Boston market and has been durable all this time and doesn't run from the October spotlight. We don't know how Shields or Bailey would handle Boston but we know how Lester does. If Lester walks then the pressure ratchets on the Sox to outbid the others for guys like Shields or Bailey resulting in one of two scenarios: they overpay the pitcher they try to sign and would have been better off just signing Lester or they don't get a replacement for Lester and the Sox rotation has a humongous hole to fill with very little certainty that it can be filled well, and if you go the trade route, the value for a top notch replacement for Lester would gut your system. So, no I don't think Olney is crying wolf here. Lester is the exactly the type of guy the Sox should spend their money on. Well, my point was Olney makes it sound as if the Red Sox have absolutely no contingency plan if Lester were to leave, which I think is ridiculous. Losing Lester does not mean you have to automatically replace him with someone equal or better. They're losing another 'established' guy in Peavy, too. My take: I think Lester has a better than good chance to be a solid contributor in 2015 & 2016. My guess is his production the subsequent three or fours years could be replaced without too much effort. The only reason to think otherwise is if he can sustain better than normal command (this dates back to 2nd half last year). Jmei provided a great post above illustrating why he's been so effective this year. At the same time, he has struggled with his command on occasion - as recently as his previous start in ATL. His pure stuff will not provide enough margin as he ages. So, the question will be whether he continues to go down the path of a Cliff Lee type with excellent command or if he'll revert back to his career norms. Using historical data as a guide, avoiding long term commitments with starters 31+ YO is, more often than not, considered common sense. I really like Lester, even when he was pitching like a #4/#5 as recently as a year ago this time, but signing him to a Hamels-type contract just so you have the security of 'established' pitching does not scream to me as the obvious solution. I don't think Olney is saying that the Sox don't have a contingency plan in place as much as he's saying the alternative options aren't very palatable. Free agency is a mixed bag - no doubt. If the Sox sign Lester for six years and get three strong years out of it they probably did good - especially if one of those years gets you a championship. Think of the Schilling and Foulke deals. They didn't get 100% value each year and in Foulke's case they basically got 1 strong year out of 3, but man was it worth it. I've been wrong about Lester before and I'm sure I could be again. Before last season I saw a guy who's stuff had diminished and was never going to be the ace that we hoped he could be. By the end of last season and from what I've seen, I see a guy who's really turned a corner and has learned how to pitch. He is still durable, which is a huge thing, and I'm no longer certain that he's about to fall off a cliff like I was before. I actually think he could be a pretty strong pitcher still at age 35 or 36. And again looking at the other options out there, re-signing Lester seems better to me than hoping the other big money guys (not Scherzer) could handle Boston or having to give up a ton for a starter in the trade market. I'm not in total disagreement with your though that in years 4 thru 6 Lester's performance might not be as hard to replace, but I think the positive value he can bring you over the next year years outweighs that, especially for a team with excellent financial flexibility. And speaking of which, losing Jake Peavy, an "established" starter is actually a very good thing as I have little doubt his performance can be replaced by one of the young pitching hopefuls. Lester, on the other hand, I sincerely doubt his performance will be duplicated, even by Owens.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2014 22:20:21 GMT -5
Honest question: how many players can you name who couldn't "handle Boston" to the point where their performance on the field suffered as a result?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 2, 2014 22:27:00 GMT -5
Honest question: how many players can you name who couldn't "handle Boston" to the point where their performance on the field suffered as a result? CC?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 2, 2014 22:53:04 GMT -5
Honest question: how many players can you name who couldn't "handle Boston" to the point where their performance on the field suffered as a result? CC? He had significant injury issues and hasn't improved in LA. I don't think you can blame his struggles on Boston, at least not conclusively.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 3, 2014 0:00:25 GMT -5
He had significant injury issues and hasn't improved in LA. I don't think you can blame his struggles on Boston, at least not conclusively. He wasn't injured when he first came to Boston. He just plain stunk and wasn't happy here. Too intense an atmosphere. Then the injuries came and he's never been the player he was in Tampa. Edgar Renteria was another guy that really wasn't made for Boston as it turned out. Injuries were a factor there, too as he had a bad back. I honestly think there's a pressure that comes from playing in Boston or New York, particularly if you've signed for the big money. That's why a Carl Pavano or an AJ Burnett doesn't do particularly well in New York but does better elsewhere. Your performance gets magnified as there's a lot more media following the Sox and fan interest is extremely rabid. Some players like to play out of the spotlight and some players enjoy the intensity and the spotlight. It's not going to turn a superstar into a mediocrity or a mediocrity into a superstar but I think it can influence performance. There is a mental aspect to the game.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 3, 2014 8:04:23 GMT -5
He had significant injury issues and hasn't improved in LA. I don't think you can blame his struggles on Boston, at least not conclusively. We will never have enough information about anyone to prove this "conclusively."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2014 8:29:19 GMT -5
What's interesting is that the big increase in Lester's strikeout rate this year has come from called strikeouts, while his swinging strikeout rate is only a little higher than years past. Here are his strikeout swinging/called from the last few years (data from minorleaguecentral), not including today's start (where he had 4 called strikeouts and 8 swinging strikeouts):
| Swinging strikeout rate
| Called strikeout rate
| 2011 | 15% | 6.1% | 2012 | 13.1% | 4.6% | 2013 | 12.6%
| 6.1% | 2014
| 14.4%
| 11.7%
|
His granular plate discipline numbers back this up. His contact rate of 79.5% this year is an improvement from his last few years (2013: 81.9%, 2012: 90.3%, 2011: 80.3%), but it's still nowhere near his peak (between 2009-10, his contact rate was 76.4%). This bump up in his strikeout rate isn't really driven by hitters swinging-and-missing more, but instead by a lot more called third strikes. Is this trend sustainable? On one hand, I think it's clear his command has been better this year than in years past, and he's been hitting the corners extremely effectively. In particular, he's throwing to his glove side a lot more this year. Compare and contract his heat map in terms of pitches thrown in 2014 to 2011-13 and it's immediately obvious that he's working inside to righties and outside to lefties a lot more than he has in years past (the best way to do this is to have the two links above open in separate tabs and then switch back and forth between them rapidly). A lot of this is due to the reemergence of his cutter, which has looked very good this year. By both Inside Edge pitch values and pitchf/x pitch values, it was one of his best pitches earlier in his career, was awful from 2011-13, and looks to have bounced back this year. The movement and velocity on the pitch hasn't changed much. Instead, the big difference is that he's locating it more outside of the zone this year, and hitters have offered at more of those cutters outside the zone. His contact rate on in-zone cutters and out-of-zone cutters hasn't changed much (hitters are actually making more contact than they have in years past), but because hitters are swinging at more out-of-zone cutters (which they are more likely to swing-and-miss on), he's gotten more swinging strikes on the pitch overall. On one hand, this could be Lester improving his command of the pitch and forcing hitters to chase pitches just outside of the zone. On the other hand, this could be hitters not yet having adjusted to the fact that Lester is throwing more cutters out of the zone than usual (especially to the arm side-- compare 2014 to 2011-13). I also think he's pitched to some friendly strike zones, and he's mainly thrown to David Ross, a pitch-framing wizard who might not be on the team next year. If you look at his heat map with two strikes, he's not really throwing the ball in different locations than he has in years past (compare 2014 with 2011-13) but he's having more of those pitches go for strikes (compare 2014 with 2011-13; especially look at the glove-side pitches (on the right side of the charts), where he's picked up a lot of extra strikes). The hundred million dollar question is this: is this trend Lester learning to pitch with diminished stuff and spotting his pitches (especially his cutter) more effectively, and thus a sustainable improvement in his true talent level? Or is it just some combination of unusually friendly strike zones, David Ross' framing, and the league not yet having adjusted to the change in his pitch locations? Jeff Sullivan at Fangraphs has an article along the same lines up today. He notes that a lot of Lester's called third strikes have been on pitches outside the strike zone (by pitch f/x standards) and have come with David Ross behind the plate-- they've been the most effective extra-strike-getting duo in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2014 8:39:30 GMT -5
The comp of Bailey is germane because he is a clear step down from Lester and yet just got an much larger deal than the Sox offered Lester. jmei has expressed confidence that this gets done. I think if Sox do not sign him by July 18 (day after the All Star break) then Lester is gone.Is that just picking a date out of the sky or what? I think the Sox sign him even if it's in November.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2014 8:40:26 GMT -5
Honest question: how many players can you name who couldn't "handle Boston" to the point where their performance on the field suffered as a result? Edgar Renteria
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 3, 2014 8:42:19 GMT -5
Honest question: how many players can you name who couldn't "handle Boston" to the point where their performance on the field suffered as a result? Reteria comes to mind. Lugo, though one could submit he just sucked but truth is he failed to even play to career averages while in Boston. Crawford seemed to press before the injury bug, but that may have been trying to live up to the contract as much as anything. Still never performed to career averages when healthy. Melacon could be another candidate - had so-so stuff in NY, found it in no one cares Houston, lost it again in Boston, and then miraculously found it again in hardly anyone cares Pittsburgh. Counterpoint is that such unevenness is the very definition of relievers. Argument could be made for Coco Crisp, as well.
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 3, 2014 8:45:01 GMT -5
The comp of Bailey is germane because he is a clear step down from Lester and yet just got an much larger deal than the Sox offered Lester. jmei has expressed confidence that this gets done. I think if Sox do not sign him by July 18 (day after the All Star break) then Lester is gone.Is that just picking a date out of the sky or what? I think the Sox sign him even if it's in November. No that's the date after the All Star break. If the Sox don't sign him then, why would he not test free agency or sign in the exclusive period unless they blow him away. The message, which we hear from players all the time, would be, "I guess they didn't really want me." Also, when was the last time this ownership group signed any free agent not named Ortiz in the exclusive 10-day post WS signing period? Not saying firsts don't occur, but it's a near-zero probability.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Jun 3, 2014 8:45:01 GMT -5
I don't think Olney is saying that the Sox don't have a contingency plan in place as much as he's saying the alternative options aren't very palatable. Free agency is a mixed bag - no doubt. If the Sox sign Lester for six years and get three strong years out of it they probably did good - especially if one of those years gets you a championship. Think of the Schilling and Foulke deals. They didn't get 100% value each year and in Foulke's case they basically got 1 strong year out of 3, but man was it worth it. I've been wrong about Lester before and I'm sure I could be again. Before last season I saw a guy who's stuff had diminished and was never going to be the ace that we hoped he could be. By the end of last season and from what I've seen, I see a guy who's really turned a corner and has learned how to pitch. He is still durable, which is a huge thing, and I'm no longer certain that he's about to fall off a cliff like I was before. I actually think he could be a pretty strong pitcher still at age 35 or 36.And again looking at the other options out there, re-signing Lester seems better to me than hoping the other big money guys (not Scherzer) could handle Boston or having to give up a ton for a starter in the trade market. I'm not in total disagreement with your though that in years 4 thru 6 Lester's performance might not be as hard to replace, but I think the positive value he can bring you over the next year years outweighs that, especially for a team with excellent financial flexibility. And speaking of which, losing Jake Peavy, an "established" starter is actually a very good thing as I have little doubt his performance can be replaced by one of the young pitching hopefuls. Lester, on the other hand, I sincerely doubt his performance will be duplicated, even by Owens. The area I bolded is where I think many are living in denial. That's not meant to be an insult, rather, fans have a hard time facing the reality pitchers will break down. Durability is great until they're not durable anymore. Otherwise, the indestructible Roy Halladay would still be pitching and Cliff Lee's elbow wouldn't be barking. And I picked examples of perhaps the two most efficient pitchers in the game for a 6+ year stretch. Lester has thrown a ton of pitches since becoming a regular SP in '08. 6th most in baseball to be exact. IMO, it's a huge stretch to think he could be a 'pretty strong pitcher still at age 35 or 36'. So I still like Lester, at least the 30 year old version today and maybe the 31 and 32 year old future versions. But I see no reason to go above the Wainwright extension (5/$97.5M) knowing and accepting nearly all of the value will (hopefully) come in years 1 & 2.
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,655
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 3, 2014 8:51:37 GMT -5
The area I bolded is where I think many are living in denial. That's not meant to be an insult, rather, fans have a hard time facing the reality pitchers will break down. Durability is great until they're not durable anymore. Otherwise, the indestructible Roy Halladay would still be pitching and Cliff Lee's elbow wouldn't be barking. And I picked examples of perhaps the two most efficient pitchers in the game for a 6+ year stretch. Lester has thrown a ton of pitches since becoming a regular SP in '08. 6th most in baseball to be exact. IMO, it's a huge stretch to think he could be a 'pretty strong pitcher still at age 35 or 36'. So I still like Lester, at least the 30 year old version today and maybe the 31 and 32 year old future versions. But I see no reason to go above the Wainwright extension (5/$97.5M) knowing and accepting nearly all of the value will (hopefully) come in years 1 & 2. I would go 6 years at $120M but ONLY if that 6th year is a Lackey year, where, if he blows up the arm/shoulder in year 1-5 the Sox get a 6th year at MLB minimum. Lester actually seems like the kind of guy who would do that deal. If I was his agent, I would of course say, "Not a chance." But I'd make the offer. Lester prob believes in himself enough to think that will never happen, and he gets his $20M a year x 6 (with the caveat) which he'd likely get - and prob more - on the open market, with the trade-off on that last $20M being his belief in his health vs. staying in a city he likes.
|
|
|