|
Post by Guidas on Jul 19, 2014 10:56:10 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! Trust me, if there was a legit shot at getting Darvish, I would've started a thread, built a shrine, and sent everyone here t-shirts. No Yu for you! (or any of us, unfortunately).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 19, 2014 21:21:41 GMT -5
I posted a really long analysis of why I think the Red Sox should acquire Cliff Lee, but moved it to the trade proposal subforum. But it's relevant here, too-- a large part of why I don't think they desperately have to re-sign Lester. There are a lot of very good pitchers who will be available over the next few months-- Scherzer, Lester, Lee, and Shields-- and I think it wouldn't be too hard for the Red Sox to find a capable replacement.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 20, 2014 0:25:05 GMT -5
I thought shields pitched well the other night. If the sox do not resign Lester, is he a viable replacement?
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Jul 20, 2014 2:33:13 GMT -5
I thought shields pitched well the other night. If the sox do not resign Lester, is he a viable replacement? Shields has thrown a lot of innings in his career, he is going to be 33 years old next year. i would be comfortable committing for 3 years 40 million.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 20, 2014 7:53:02 GMT -5
I posted a really long analysis of why I think the Red Sox should acquire Cliff Lee, but moved it to the trade proposal subforum. But it's relevant here, too-- a large part of why I don't think they desperately have to re-sign Lester. There are a lot of very good pitchers who will be available over the next few months-- Scherzer, Lester, Lee, and Shields-- and I think it wouldn't be too hard for the Red Sox to find a capable replacement. Agree about Cliff Lee. Could be intriguing. Not sure how you consider Scherzer and Shields as possible replacements. It would be poor roster management to do either. You'll go from pick 12-16(I'm guessing) to around 30. Shields is 2 years older than Jon. Gonna get at least 4. If we won't give 31 yr old Lester 6? Why give 33 year old Shields 4? Scherzer wants as much money if not more than Lester. Plus, you will move back in the 1st. I don't consider either a sensible replacement for Lester.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 20, 2014 10:02:26 GMT -5
The reason I'd be more comfortable going 4 for Shields than going 6 for Lester is because we have more data on Shields-- we already know he's been healthy and productive over his age 31-32 seasons, which lowers some of the risk of a long-term contract. You're right that Shields isn't that much better a risk than Lester, but I do think he's a viable alternative who should be on that list.
The loss of a draft pick would certainly be a cost to factor in, but that's a cost that comes with signing any of the above names. If the Red Sox don't think they can extend Lester, they should trade him midseason, and that prospect return would help compensate for the draft pick (or trade return) necessary to acquire Lester's replacement.
But more broadly, I think inevitably some pitcher is going to lose the game of musical chairs, and Boston can snatch him up for a slightly below-market price. There just aren't that many teams who can and are willing to commit a $20m AAV for a pitcher-- the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox for sure, maybe the Tigers and Rangers, and maybe a wild card like the Orioles or Cubs. Between the four guys I mentioned above and trade candidates like Price or Samardzija, I think there's a glut of supply, and it makes sense to wait on the market and see if anyone comes at a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 20, 2014 12:27:00 GMT -5
I would've been all in on Lee until the balky elbow showed up in force this year. Lotta tread wear on those tires.
Hamels intrigues me more. A case could almost be made for acquiring him, re-signing Lester and trading Lackey at the deadline, as he will likely generate 1-2 of the level of prospects that you'd have to give up for Hamels (or you could flip those in the Hamels deal and only lose one of your own).
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 20, 2014 15:33:13 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the price keeps going up and up as the season goes on. Lester is a stud. If the team wasn't so bad, he'd probably be neck and neck for Cy Young with King Felix.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 20, 2014 19:26:36 GMT -5
I still think an extension gets done while the playoffs are going on (if we miss the playoffs)
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2014 22:05:19 GMT -5
I still think an extension gets done while the playoffs are going on (if we miss the playoffs) Honestly, I think this ship has sailed. At this point Lester has to know that he'll have seven year $175 million deals on the table. There's no way the Yanks aren't interested. I'm sure there will be others like the Dodgers or the Cubs. There will be a lot of demand for his services. The Sox trying to give him 5 years $120 million won't get it done. They should have offered that this spring. I think that would have gotten him re-signed. We'll never know. The only thing I can guess well is that the Sox won't and shouldn't go as high as 7 years and $175 million. But it never should have gotten to that. I think we'll see Lester in pinstripes next season. They certainly have the need.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 20, 2014 22:17:44 GMT -5
I still think an extension gets done while the playoffs are going on (if we miss the playoffs) Honestly, I think this ship has sailed. At this point Lester has to know that he'll have seven year $175 million deals on the table. There's no way the Yanks are interested. I think the Bronx pretenders will go hard after Lester and I do not think 7 and 175 scares them at all.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2014 23:29:39 GMT -5
Honestly, I think this ship has sailed. At this point Lester has to know that he'll have seven year $175 million deals on the table. There's no way the Yanks are interested. I think the Bronx pretenders will go hard after Lester and I do not think 7 and 175 scares them at all. I agree. I meant to say there's no way the Yanks aren't interested, but typed are interested instead. The Yanks obviously need starting pitching. Lester would fit their bill nicely. And as we know the Yanks like to strengthen themselves and weaken the Sox simultaneously. Not saying that the Sox should match the Yanks dollar for dollar, but the Sox have foolishly put themselves into this position. They should have gotten a deal done in spring training.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 8:58:44 GMT -5
This is where you hope Lester really meant it when he said he wanted to stay in Boston. I really don't think that has changed despite how much everyone builds this up as if they are actually Lester and that every day not signed makes the situation worse and worse despite the fact that they aren't negotiating.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jul 21, 2014 9:12:06 GMT -5
This is where you hope Lester really meant it when he said he wanted to stay in Boston. I really don't think that has changed despite how much everyone builds this up as if they are actually Lester and that every day not signed makes the situation worse and worse despite the fact that they aren't negotiating. I'm inclined to sit with you here altho the passage of time and Lester's performance have not been on our side. If the Yanks get him, can you imagine the payroll they will have?...with A-Rod coming back and going on the market for a marquee SS? Man there has got to be a better incentive/disincentive in the next CBA. Yanks just spent ~ 30 Mill in the international market counting penalties/tax as if it were nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 9:25:13 GMT -5
This is where you hope Lester really meant it when he said he wanted to stay in Boston. I really don't think that has changed despite how much everyone builds this up as if they are actually Lester and that every day not signed makes the situation worse and worse despite the fact that they aren't negotiating. I'm inclined to sit with you here altho the passage of time and Lester's performance have not been on our side. If the Yanks get him, can you imagine the payroll they will have?...with A-Rod coming back and going on the market for a marquee SS? Man there has got to be a better incentive/disincentive in the next CBA. Yanks just spent ~ 30 Mill in the international market counting penalties/tax as if it were nothing. Obviously the price is going up, but so will the Red Sox' value that they place on him. It doesn't make them less likely to sign him.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 21, 2014 9:26:17 GMT -5
So the consensus I keep on hearing all around baseball is paying Lester $25 million a year. The assumption is that a "hometown discount" is in years. While that might be the case I very easily think that hometown discount could be AAV as well. If the Sox were willing to give him the years it keeps him in Boston for his career and helps the Sox in terms of payroll flexibility. Maybe not now....but if the Sox offered Lester 7/140 in the spring I think he easily takes that. That's effectively a 2 year 7.5 per deal at the end of the 5/125 I keep on seeing being thrown around. Maybe he does take that now, maybe he doesn't'....but I think that at least gets him back to the table talking, with the hopes of getting something done this season.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jul 21, 2014 11:44:47 GMT -5
We all realize that Lester is an easy fit in NY or Detroit, right? If Scherzer goes to NY, Detroit can just give Lester the contract Scherzer declined (6x24). The least Lester will get on the open market, assuming he avoids injury, is $144 million. If Scherzer goes on NY, Lester signs with NY and points to Scherzer's contract to begin discussions. That being the case, Lester resigning with the Sox for 6x24 prior to free agency would be a "home town" discount since would be foregoing to possibility (likelihood?) of a bidding war that could drive his salary to $160+.
And to think that the Sox didn't at least try to get something done in the $120 Million area in spring training. Oh, well.
BTW, we all realize James Shields is getting a minimum of 4 at $20 per, right?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 11:54:32 GMT -5
Around a year ago, fans were discussing whether Lester's option this year should be picked up. Let's not pretend that Lester's AAV goes up a million per great start.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 21, 2014 12:22:05 GMT -5
There's a pretty easy argument to be made that Shields for 4/$80m is a better deal than Lester at 6/$144m.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 21, 2014 12:32:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 21, 2014 12:46:43 GMT -5
The wise thought process is that spending six years on a 30 year old pitcher is like investing in a declining market. Makes all the sense in the world. So never sign a 30 year old pitcher to a deal for say six years $140 - $150 million.
But can you truly say that in 100% of the cases? Would Lester be that rare one you do sign?
One concern is always the mileage on the arm. Makes sense. Lester has never missed time except for when he was battling cancer at the beginning of his career. If past injuries are understandably a red flag, then why would Lester's durability be a point against him? Does he have other factors such as weight issues (like Sabathia) or delivery issues (the kind that lead to TJ surgery)?
I'm not seeing this and the truth of the matter is that since the All-star break last year Lester has been very consistent and has pitched like an ace. Perhaps he turned the corner on any mechanical issues he had that plagued him in 2012 and a portion of 2013? The numbers are quite excellent.
Say you sign him for six years $150 million and you get an excellent performance for three years, decent to good performance for two years and a mediocre 2012 like or injury plagued performance for another season's worth, wouldn't that still constitute good value?
After all, Lester's perceived value of $25 million is the going rate for a #1/#2 type starter. Toward the end of the contract that might be a good #3's starting pitcher value. Inflation might push a #1/#2 type starter's free agent value to $35 million/year by then.
Then there's the cost to find somebody to replace Lester's performance in 2015. Yeah they could trade for aging Cliff Lee, but I would think Lester would be a better bet to sustain in excellence in 2015 than Lee at age 37 would. They could deal for Hamels, but the Phils are talking three top prospects. I'd think the value of the prospects would outweigh the difference of saving two years between Lester's and Hamels' contracts.
Then there's the value of if he goes to a division rival like the Yankees. Understand you can't try to pre-empt the Yankees' moves and throw money away like it's nothing, but that doesn't mean you hand over your best pitcher on a silver platter. Thus far, that's where the Sox are at. Had a chance to sign him for five to six years and perhaps $22 million/year, gambled he wouldn't be so good, and now they're looking at competing against very high contract offers from other teams, which is something that could have been avoided if the team had been more pro-active.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 21, 2014 13:33:47 GMT -5
There's a pretty easy argument to be made that Shields for 4/$80m is a better deal than Lester at 6/$144m. How is an argument pretty easy when it is based on projections on their future capabilities? Seems you would have assume certain things and events and any argument who is better now is not that easy. If you are projecting by stats on general trends, you are making a leap from the general to the particular and it may apply to neither. Likewise using dollar values is skating the issue of who will be actually better going forward. How old is Shields any way compared to Lester.? Isn't he about 2 years older and won't 4 years put him at the same age as Lester in 6? Are you dumb enough to say you can go by his first years after 30 to say he will produce the next four. Seems the same risk you try to attribute to Lester. Almost everyone who actually knows something about baseball because it is their job suggests Lester will age just fine based on his history body type, and pitching savvy. You basically use a general trend and try to apply it to the particular, in this case Lester. Likewise, you appear to try to degrade his accomplishments by crediting it to Ross or the generosity of umpires.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 21, 2014 13:38:45 GMT -5
he didn't say it was easy to win the argument, just that it was a defensible position, and there was some gray area. C'mon
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 13:39:15 GMT -5
How does any team ever figure out how much to offer any free agent? There are some pretty smart people figuring things out other than gut feel and trying to quantify pitching savvy.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 21, 2014 13:39:42 GMT -5
Using data and stats and historical comps at least provides a consistent framework for evaluating players. Teams can decide to stray from that if they feel strongly there are immeasurables at play that warrant that*. It's at least better than, "I like Lester. I think he's worth x. Plus, he has pitching "pitching savvy." I mean, a couple monkeys and a dart board might also work.
EDT:
* Or market pressures that require they pay more $$ to ge their guy that they love so much. Rational or not.
|
|