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 jmei on Jul 18, 2014 11:50:24 GMT -5
A weird way to look at it, perhaps, but think about this way. The Red Sox are choosing carefully how they are willing to fail. They are not willing to fail by being locked into expensive, restrictive, long-term contracts with declining veterans, but they are willing to risk failure with expensive short-term contracts/rookies/role-players/veterans on team-friendly contracts. How a team fails is just as important as how a team succeeds. All teams fail at some point or another, the question is just how they do it. Billy Beane has traded away much of his valuable farm pieces for what seems like a chance to win big now. This means that the A's could have a really ugly team as soon as next year, but that is how they have chosen to risk failure over the next few years. I like the risk management model the Sox seem to be using, but has it moved from risk management to risk aversion? It does seem like there is an absolute prohibition on signing potentially bad value contracts. But, every once in a while, a (perceived) bad value player saves the day: e.g. Lackey last year, Manny in 2004. Value does not win championships, performance does. Really great points. Two minor elaborations. First, it has never been an absolute aversion to long-term, expensive contracts. It has instead been a rebuttable presumption that such deals are bad, but a presumption that has often enough been overcome. For instance, if you can trade-for-and-extend a player, the extension can be below-market enough or the player young enough such that the transaction as a whole makes sense. Schilling (who was old but agreed to a pretty cheap extension) and Gonzalez (who was both a fair bit below-market and was acquired at age 28, younger than most free agents) fell into this category (cough Stanton cough). The front office has also targeted athletic, multi-dimensional position players, under the assumption that they age well (Drew, Crawford; cough Heyward cough), though that's one they might back away from considering how quickly both those guys succumbed to injuries. Second, the player development model no longer makes as much sense under the new CBA. The new compensation draft pick system significantly reduces the benefit of letting guys walk, while the new draft and IFA rules makes splurging on overslot guys virtually impossible (you now basically have to rob Peter to pay Paul). With those avenues closed, does it now make more sense to spend on the free agent market? Maybe, though I still think there are more efficient ways to spend than on long-term extensions for pitchers, probably still the riskiest class of free agent signing.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 18, 2014 11:56:20 GMT -5
Setting aside the financial arguments for a moment, losing Lester would be a bummer. We watched him grow into a great pitcher, win championships, and beat lymphoma. There is a history and appreciation there. Losing guys like that when they are still effective players is a shame. Met the guy last night. Really gracious, funny, self-deprecating. Must have signed hundreds of baseballs, and took an equal number of pictures. An easy guy to root for. I'd like him to be my two year old's favorite pitcher in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jul 18, 2014 11:56:58 GMT -5
On 'EEI this morning, Steve Buckley mentioned that Lester may be on his way to the hall of fame, assuming he can stay healthy and continue pitching well deep into his 30s. He was quick to state "may" not "is". Before dismissing the suggestion, Andy Pettitte has a shot at the Hall, assuming the PED issued doesn't swamp him. Lester's numbers are a little better than Pettittes and Lester had the tougher park to pitch in (Fenway v. Old Yankee stadium)for a lefty.
My point is Lester is similarly durable to Pettitte, probably more productive, and like Pettitte has been huge during the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jul 18, 2014 12:24:04 GMT -5
But the Sox have the luxury of spending way more $ than the Cards I've always had issue with statements like this. The Cards ownership is worth more than the Red Sox ownership; should they choose to go all Mike Illitch on the Cardinals they could easily outspend the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 18, 2014 12:30:41 GMT -5
It seems pretty clear to me that Lester is going to be free agent at this point and there is little to no chance that the Red Sox will meet his asking price. If the Red Sox do not trade him before July 31 then it would be compounding the mistakes they made last offseason by waiting until the end of spring training and offering him a contract that they knew he would not accept. This team needs to adapt to the changing market as others have said.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 18, 2014 14:00:39 GMT -5
It seems pretty clear to me that Lester is going to be free agent at this point and there is little to no chance that the Red Sox will meet his asking price. If the Red Sox do not trade him before July 31 then it would be compounding the mistakes they made last offseason by waiting until the end of spring training and offering him a contract that they knew he would not accept. This team needs to adapt to the changing market as others have said. I don't think the sox need to adapt. They set a price they felt Lester was worth and they stuck to their guns. This stuff in he media seems to be public relations more than anything else. If Lester can get more on the open market then that is his right.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 18, 2014 14:46:57 GMT -5
It seems pretty clear to me that Lester is going to be free agent at this point and there is little to no chance that the Red Sox will meet his asking price. If the Red Sox do not trade him before July 31 then it would be compounding the mistakes they made last offseason by waiting until the end of spring training and offering him a contract that they knew he would not accept. This team needs to adapt to the changing market as others have said. I don't think the sox need to adapt. They set a price they felt Lester was worth and they stuck to their guns. This stuff in he media seems to be public relations more than anything else. If Lester can get more on the open market then that is his right. I don't think it will make any difference in the end, but I think the team was wrong to offer him 4/75. It's as if Larry was purposely trying to paint Lester as a greedy ballplayer who won't accept more money than most Red Sox fans can even dream about. As a fan I find such tactics insulting. Does he think we are all stupid?
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 18, 2014 14:59:43 GMT -5
Holding on to Lester at this point makes no sense. Neither does trading for someone like Hamels who is still owed over $90 million and would cost at least two or three top prospects. The Red Sox need to be honest about their limited post season chances and start a major sell off to build for 2015 and beyond. It should start with Lester and extend yo guys like Koji, Peavy, Gomes, Breslow, etc.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 18, 2014 15:07:56 GMT -5
Holding on to Lester at this point makes no sense. Neither does trading for someone like Hamels who is still owed over $90 million and would cost at least two or three top prospects. The Red Sox need to be honest about their limited post season chances and start a major sell off to build for 2015 and beyond. It should start with Lester and extend yo guys like Koji, Peavy, Gomes, Breslow, etc. I'm in with this. It's baffling and hard to figure out the logic of why the Sox figure that extra year and possible 22-25m on a contract for a pitcher would be worth more than 2, maybe 3 top prospects. It makes -0- sense at all it that story contains any truth to it at all.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 18, 2014 15:12:07 GMT -5
Holding on to Lester at this point makes no sense. Neither does trading for someone like Hamels who is still owed over $90 million and would cost at least two or three top prospects. The Red Sox need to be honest about their limited post season chances and start a major sell off to build for 2015 and beyond. It should start with Lester and extend yo guys like Koji, Peavy, Gomes, Breslow, etc. I'm in with this. It's baffling and hard to figure out the logic of why the Sox figure that extra year and possible 22-25m on a contract for a pitcher would be worth more than 2, maybe 3 top prospects. It makes -0- sense at all it that story contains any truth to it at all. you are not going to get 2-3 top prospects for Lester, unless you let the team he is traded to sign him to an extension as he is purely a rental.... If the sox feel that they still have a chance to extend him, they they should not trade him
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 18, 2014 15:41:46 GMT -5
The WeeI article I should have better explained, where chasing after Hamels would have/will cost Boston a couple (at least) of top prospects. I don't think a half season rental of Lester in any trade would bring back nearly as much as it would require to get Hamels, since he is signed, for what it now seems is pretty much a below market deal and "only" 4 seasons.
Apologies again for not being more specific and for not just cutting out the portion of the post agreed with I generally do Grandsalami.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 18, 2014 15:48:47 GMT -5
The Red Sox aren't going to offer Lester enough to be in the ballpark of other offers to sign him so it makes sense to trade him at this point. They blew their best chance to sign him by not making a significant effort to sign him after last season. All it takes is one team to offer them a top prospect and possibly a lottery ticket or two for Lester. Keeping him at this point is just extending the mistakes that they made last offseason.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Jul 18, 2014 15:58:58 GMT -5
Holding on to Lester at this point makes no sense. Neither does trading for someone like Hamels who is still owed over $90 million and would cost at least two or three top prospects. The Red Sox need to be honest about their limited post season chances and start a major sell off to build for 2015 and beyond. It should start with Lester and extend yo guys like Koji, Peavy, Gomes, Breslow, etc. I'm in with this. It's baffling and hard to figure out the logic of why the Sox figure that extra year and possible 22-25m on a contract for a pitcher would be worth more than 2, maybe 3 top prospects. It makes -0- sense at all it that story contains any truth to it at all. Guess it would depend on the prospects coming back, but unless one of them is a future #1 or #2 starter then I think Lester's value is really being under rated here. If Lester leaves WHO replaces him? I have more hope in Owens than a lot on this board but he isn't taking the ball opening day 2015 no matter what. So who is? Lackey? Buch? Shields (won't he cost just as much?) Who? I just think this is a better 2015 team than 2014. The kids have to play in order to get better. Really think Bradley is already improving. Really think signing Drew negatively affected Bogaerts but whatever the case he needs to fail now to succeed later. Same with Betts. No guarantee any are going to be great but isn't this plan A? Lester is still young enough and good enough to factor into this plan. He has been so good in the playoffs too. I agree with the fire sale proposal as this team has shown very little indication of being a playoff team, but IMO those parts should be Lackey, Drew, Gomes, Peavy, Carp, Nava maybe Koji if the return is too good to pass up?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 18, 2014 16:04:24 GMT -5
The WeeI article I should have better explained, where chasing after Hamels would have/will cost Boston a couple (at least) of top prospects. I don't think a half season rental of Lester in any trade would bring back nearly as much as it would require to get Hamels, since he is signed, for what it now seems is pretty much a below market deal and "only" 4 seasons. Apologies again for not being more specific and for not just cutting out the portion of the post agreed with I generally do Grandsalami. Now I'm on board for signing Lester to a 4 year/$96 million prospect and then immediately trading him for a couple (at least) of top prospects.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 18, 2014 16:31:47 GMT -5
If Lester leaves WHO replaces him? And if Lester stays, who replaces him? Wait, did someone say this thread is going around in circles? Please just lock this thread now so I'm not tempted to waste my time on it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 18, 2014 17:47:48 GMT -5
Cliff Lee was going to cost a bundle early in 2013 and he was still owed a minimum of nearly 90m, counting the buyout on 2016 and that was only for 3 seasons. Not night and day difference between the 2, except for Hamels being 5y younger. You think Philly was going to give Lee away, without getting a top prospect or 2 in exchange?
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Jul 18, 2014 19:27:52 GMT -5
5 years 120 million for Lester is a FAIR offer, i am worried that a team Yankees, if Lester reaches the open market will get ATLEAST 150 million from the Yankees or the Dodgers. Just make the offer, Lester has been a durable pitcher for us and we need him to lead our staff for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 18, 2014 23:09:48 GMT -5
I would not sign Lester for 5 and 120. Let the pretenders in the Bronx choke on that deal.
Yu darvish is the answer. Owens, Webster ranauldo betts and maybe Margot should get that deal done!
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 19, 2014 5:21:37 GMT -5
I would not sign Lester for 5 and 120. Let the pretenders in the Bronx choke on that deal. Yu darvish is the answer. Owens, Webster ranauldo betts and maybe Margot should get that deal done! you forgot to add Swihart and Devers.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 19, 2014 9:22:07 GMT -5
Yu Darvish is not walking through the Red Sox doors. Get over it.
Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo Ranaudo
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 19, 2014 9:25:01 GMT -5
You mean there is no "L" in Ranaudo? Is that what you're trying to say?
Ranaudo has no L?
Ranaudo is spelled R-A-N-A-U-D-O?
Did I get that right?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by zil on Jul 19, 2014 9:48:47 GMT -5
Buckley is nuts. Lester would have to more than double his career WAR to meet the Hall's standards for starting pitchers. Plus, they're getting tougher and tougher on pitchers seeing as Curt Schilling (who should be a slam dunk) is having trouble gaining traction.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 19, 2014 9:50:48 GMT -5
I would not sign Lester for 5 and 120. Let the pretenders in the Bronx choke on that deal. Yu darvish is the answer. Owens, Webster ranauldo betts and maybe Margot should get that deal done! Yu's not going anywhere. Even if he were, you want to gut our system for him then deal with the same questions about re-signing him in a couple years? I'd give Lester our best offer and deal him if he doesn't take it, sign Shields if he'll take a reasonable contract in the offseason. But Yu Darvish isn't the answer, cause there's basically no way Texas is dealing him, even in an off year. And beyond that, 5 for 120 isn't anything like on the scale of the deals that the Yanks have been handing out for years, usually to guys less likely to perform to them. I would absolutely give that deal to Lester- he's been dominant this year, and he's not that old. As long as we keep the deal to 5 years and a reasonable AAV- $20-$25m range- I think in all likelihood he's at least pretty close to giving us full value on it, especially cause salaries are unquestionably going up. Whatever the deal he signs (whoever it's with) I bet it looks significantly better in a year or 2
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 19, 2014 10:01:58 GMT -5
If the Sox offer 5/$120 and Lester turns that down I am fine with losing him. I fully expect our top offer to be no more than 5/100 though, and agree its time to put your best offer on the table now and trade him if he's not agreeable to it.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 19, 2014 10:39:04 GMT -5
If the Sox offer 5/$120 and Lester turns that down I am fine with losing him. I fully expect our top offer to be no more than 5/100 though, and agree its time to put your best offer on the table now and trade him if he's not agreeable to it. Perhaps an offer of 5 years and $125 million might have worked this last offseason for Lester. However that ship sailed once the season started. He is as good as gone at this point as he is going to let this play out to free agency and the Red Sox likely won't be in the ballpark of other offers he is likely going to get from the MFYs, Tigers, Dodgers, etc.
|
|
|