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 James Dunne on Jul 30, 2014 10:00:12 GMT -5
like they did with Ellsbury, Pedro, Lowe, Bay, Papelbon And therein lies the point. Only Lowe, who wasn't very good at all in his last two years in Boston, ended up being a smart signing.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 30, 2014 10:09:24 GMT -5
Not saying Lester is a max money guy, but I think the trade and then buy back one of their own players, a 31 year old pitcher, at slight reduction from the full price dictated by the market - which includes the Yankees and some crazy owners - doesn't fit with John Henry's, or the front office's, organizational philosophy. Then again, for all you who want to cling to it, Obama was born in Hawaii but has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut, so, as with winning PowerBall numbers and shark attacks, there's always a less than 1% chance. I think it might fit a little better with ownership's philosophy than you suggest. Looking at it from a financial perspective, if you think he's not really going to take much of a discount anyway, trading him functions as kind of a hedging strategy- you still might re-sign him at market, and you're somewhat protected from the risk you take if you do by having acquired assets that mitigate the risk involved (i.e prospects, who will still be under team control at reasonable salaries when a Lester extension comes off the books). It definitely depends on exactly how absurd the market for pitching gets this offseason, but if I were running the team, I'd be much more willing to overpay if I had, say, Joc Pederson for the next 6 years to hold down an outfield spot, which makes payroll flexibility less important. I think that fits to a degree with the strategy ownership seems to want to adhere to- flexing financial muscle when it makes sense, and not when it doesn't. In this case, if we have a bunch of long term holes to fill (OF upgrade, middle of the order bat to replace Papi, Napoli maybe after next year) it doesn't make sense to throw a massive, market-level offer at Lester. But if we can add someone who will fill one of those holes and boost the offense, it makes a lot more sense
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 30, 2014 10:10:29 GMT -5
According to Jon Heyman (on the radio), the Red Sox floated an offer of 5/$100mm to Lester's camp and was rejected. Haven't heard this before and don't know when the offer was made, if at all. It would be interesting to find out when/if such an offer was made as that is a lot closer to market value for Lester. If such an offer was made last offseason that would have been a good starting point. However, if was made within the last month or so, Lester would have left another year on the contract and about $50 to $ 60 million on the table. One the season started and Lester's price kept on going up it made sense for him to go the free agent route. The Red Sox can try to spin it whatever they want, but they blew it with the Lester negotiations last offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 30, 2014 10:18:30 GMT -5
like they did with Ellsbury, Pedro, Lowe, Bay, Papelbon And therein lies the point. Only Lowe, who wasn't very good at all in his last two years in Boston, ended up being a smart signing. Yup. I personally think if they could've gotten Lester for around 5yr $110M before the season started it would've been a smart deal. Unless they see something in the MRIs that is a ticking time bomb, I believe he'll earn enough WAR to justify 5 years at around $22M a year for whomever buys him. Maybe even a little more. That's just based on him saying he learned to pitch more, throw less last year, and his physique, which, if you've ever seen him up close, is big and thick, but not sloppy like Beckett seemed to become. He takes care of himself. ADDED: I also continue to believe Bay would've thrived in Boston for at least 3 years of the 4 year deal he ultimately got. His swing was perfect for the Monster and, unlike what the Sox said about his knees (still no surgery) it was the cavernous Mets park and the concussion that did him in there.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 30, 2014 10:26:56 GMT -5
Not saying Lester is a max money guy, but I think the trade and then buy back one of their own players, a 31 year old pitcher, at slight reduction from the full price dictated by the market - which includes the Yankees and some crazy owners - doesn't fit with John Henry's, or the front office's, organizational philosophy. Then again, for all you who want to cling to it, Obama was born in Hawaii but has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut, so, as with winning PowerBall numbers and shark attacks, there's always a less than 1% chance. I think it might fit a little better with ownership's philosophy than you suggest. Looking at it from a financial perspective, if you think he's not really going to take much of a discount anyway, trading him functions as kind of a hedging strategy- you still might re-sign him at market, and you're somewhat protected from the risk you take if you do by having acquired assets that mitigate the risk involved (i.e prospects, who will still be under team control at reasonable salaries when a Lester extension comes off the books). It definitely depends on exactly how absurd the market for pitching gets this offseason, but if I were running the team, I'd be much more willing to overpay if I had, say, Joc Pederson for the next 6 years to hold down an outfield spot, which makes payroll flexibility less important. I think that fits to a degree with the strategy ownership seems to want to adhere to- flexing financial muscle when it makes sense, and not when it doesn't. In this case, if we have a bunch of long term holes to fill (OF upgrade, middle of the order bat to replace Papi, Napoli maybe after next year) it doesn't make sense to throw a massive, market-level offer at Lester. But if we can add someone who will fill one of those holes and boost the offense, it makes a lot more sense I promise to donate and extra $100 to Sox Prospects if the Red Sox sign Lester for $22M or more a year this winter (which I take to be market value for a pitcher of his ilk, age, and accomplishment). I 'll donate an extra $50 if they sign him at all. He's gone.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 30, 2014 10:46:21 GMT -5
I promise to donate and extra $100 to Sox Prospects if the Red Sox sign Lester for $22M or more a year this winter (which I take to be market value for a pitcher of his ilk, age, and accomplishment). I 'll donate an extra $50 if they sign him at all. He's gone. I think there's at least some chance that trading Lester will make the Sox more willing to sign him. They would no longer be worried about the missed opportunity to get a draft pick, not to mention the worry of losing their own.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 30, 2014 10:50:53 GMT -5
I promise to donate and extra $100 to Sox Prospects if the Red Sox sign Lester for $22M or more a year this winter (which I take to be market value for a pitcher of his ilk, age, and accomplishment). I 'll donate an extra $50 if they sign him at all. He's gone. I think there's at least some chance that trading Lester will make the Sox more willing to sign him. They would no longer be worried about the missed opportunity to get a draft pick, not to mention the worry of losing their own. Lester is gone, this is real life, not a fairytale. Sox messed around and blew it. The "hometown discount" is gone. He isn't going to take one when a 6/$155 deal from the Dodgers/Yankees is sitting in front of him.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Jul 30, 2014 11:08:31 GMT -5
I do not believe there ever was a hometown discount. I find it hard to believe that an intial low-ball offer was all it took to break off negotiations with Lester. If he really wanted to come back to Boston, then grow up and nail down a deal. I do not blame Lester for wanting max dollar, but I do believe he was insincere when he say he would gladly take a discount.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 30, 2014 11:11:08 GMT -5
I do not believe there ever was a hometown discount. I find it hard to believe that an intial low-ball offer was all it took to break off negotiations with Lester. If he really wanted to come back to Boston, then grow up and nail down a deal. I do not blame Lester for wanting max dollar, but I do believe he was insincere when he say he would gladly take a discount. FWIW, I don't think any player should take substantially less than what they are worth. I never saw the reasoning behind giving billionaires a discount.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 30, 2014 11:12:47 GMT -5
I think there's at least some chance that trading Lester will make the Sox more willing to sign him. They would no longer be worried about the missed opportunity to get a draft pick, not to mention the worry of losing their own. Lester is gone, this is real life, not a fairytale. Sox messed around and blew it. The "hometown discount" is gone. He isn't going to take one when a 6/$155 deal from the Dodgers/Yankees is sitting in front of him. Nobody's assuming any hometown discount any more- we've moved on to the reality that he's going to be dealt, and I think that if he is, it makes the front office/ownership more likely to consider an offer in the range of true market value. If the market is actually what you predict, then sure, he's not coming back, and I'll be unhappy with it, but I'll get it. I think a lot of us may be jumping the gun a bit on these contract predictions though- if the dodgers/yankees are going to throw monster offers at someone (and I don't think theres any guarantee that LA will at any rate, unless they deal for Lester) I'd think they'd make runs at Scherzer first, and consider Lester a possible plan B if Boras prices Scherzer way too high. I'm not particularly optimistic about Lester coming back at this stage, but if he is dealt, I think it's marginally more likely that the Sox will shell out the cash cause they'll be better protected on the back end of the deal, and I also think that Lester's market may be somewhat hurt by being kind of the middle option- Scherzer is probably going to get a bigger deal and has better peripherals and a Cy Young, and James Shields will come with a much more affordable contract for less years while giving at least similar production. My gut feeling is that he's gone, but I know that there's a chance he might not be- for all the less-than-credible rhetoric about taking way below market deals from him, I do believe that he genuinely wants to be in Boston, and that does count for something
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jul 30, 2014 11:19:01 GMT -5
I do not believe there ever was a hometown discount. I find it hard to believe that an intial low-ball offer was all it took to break off negotiations with Lester. If he really wanted to come back to Boston, then grow up and nail down a deal. I do not blame Lester for wanting max dollar, but I do believe he was insincere when he say he would gladly take a discount. FWIW, I don't think any player should take substantially less than what they are worth. I never saw the reasoning behind giving billionaires a discount. Amen. Especially to big market teams.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 11:23:56 GMT -5
Well then he cares more about money than staying in Boston. There's no reason why the Red Sox should be stupid and pay the absurd market rates that the highest bidders seem to create with each new contract. Market rates aren't even really market rates. It should be called "highest bidder rates".
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Jul 30, 2014 11:43:23 GMT -5
I do not believe there ever was a hometown discount. I find it hard to believe that an intial low-ball offer was all it took to break off negotiations with Lester. If he really wanted to come back to Boston, then grow up and nail down a deal. I do not blame Lester for wanting max dollar, but I do believe he was insincere when he say he would gladly take a discount. FWIW, I don't think any player should take substantially less than what they are worth. I never saw the reasoning behind giving billionaires a discount.The reasoning is that it could benefit Lester by giving the Red Sox additional financial flexibility to stay under the luxury tax and sign higher quality players to play with him. I guess it depends on what you consider Lester's self-interest to be. If that is defined solely on financial gain, then he shouldn't give the Red Sox a discount. If he wants to allow the team to increase it's financial flexibility, that indirectly benefits him.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jul 30, 2014 11:43:41 GMT -5
Fully expect Lester to be signed in the offseason and return to Boston on a contract for market value. The way negotiations have played out seems to point decisively in this direction. Finding Jon a home in a market that stands no chance to re-sign him (Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc) only improves the likelihood of that outcome. Other than wishful thinking, how do you come to this conclusion? Seems to me that the Sox are nowhere near market value with Lester. Why haven't the Red Sox offered him anywhere near market value yet? What's the point of this?Gathering pieces to acquire a young middle of the order bat that won't be coming via free agency. Then, use said pieces to overpay for said bat when it matters (this season is gone, this winter/2015 is what matters). It will also be a better time for Miami to spin moving him to their fanbase ("he's getting too costly and didn't want to sign here long term"). The money and the fallback option are there if this play falls through, and they've dealt with Boras before....
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 30, 2014 12:17:30 GMT -5
Well then he cares more about money than staying in Boston. There's no reason why the Red Sox should be stupid and pay the absurd market rates that the highest bidders seem to create with each new contract. Market rates aren't even really market rates. It should be called "highest bidder rates". Which, in economics, is known as "what the market will bear" or "market rate." You are dealing with an inelastic resource and limited demand. It's eBay with 30 billionaires.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2014 12:34:50 GMT -5
Other than wishful thinking, how do you come to this conclusion? Seems to me that the Sox are nowhere near market value with Lester. Why haven't the Red Sox offered him anywhere near market value yet? What's the point of this?Gathering pieces to acquire a young middle of the order bat that won't be coming via free agency. Then, use said pieces to overpay for said bat when it matters (this season is gone, this winter/2015 is what matters). It will also be a better time for Miami to spin moving him to their fanbase ("he's getting too costly and didn't want to sign here long term"). The money and the fallback option are there if this play falls through, and they've dealt with Boras before.... I don't really understand this line of thinking. If I understand correctly, the Sox purposely didn't sign Lester when they had a chance fore presumably less money than he'll get this winter so they can trade him away for pieces to rent Giancarlo Stanton for two years before he wants his 10 year $300 million deal? And then they re-sign Lester for near market value in the winter of 2014-2015? I honestly think that's more fantasyland than anything else. The Marlins should win 75 - 80 games this year with a reasonably young team. I don't see them dealing Stanton this offseason. If they tank in 2015 then yeah, a year from now, he gets dealt, but meanwhile if the Sox aren't signing Lester, they have that hole to fill. Finding ace type pitchers isn't that easy and nobody in the current system rates that highly. So the Sox need a power bat and an ace to replace Lester. I hope somehow that the potential Lester, Lackey, and Miller deals bring the Sox these assets. More likely I think the Sox will get a subsidized Kemp in the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 12:37:45 GMT -5
Well then he cares more about money than staying in Boston. There's no reason why the Red Sox should be stupid and pay the absurd market rates that the highest bidders seem to create with each new contract. Market rates aren't even really market rates. It should be called "highest bidder rates". Which, in economics, is known as "what the market will bear" or "market rate." You are dealing with an inelastic resource and limited demand. It's eBay with 30 billionaires. This doesn't exist in economics, except in collectables. What is the market rate for a Picasso? Hmm, depends on whether two crazy billionaires show up to the auction, each never in their life hearing the words "you can't have it" or just one of them. Those two crazy guys don't set the market for every piece of art.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 12:40:35 GMT -5
Gathering pieces to acquire a young middle of the order bat that won't be coming via free agency. Then, use said pieces to overpay for said bat when it matters (this season is gone, this winter/2015 is what matters). It will also be a better time for Miami to spin moving him to their fanbase ("he's getting too costly and didn't want to sign here long term"). The money and the fallback option are there if this play falls through, and they've dealt with Boras before.... I don't really understand this line of thinking. If I understand correctly, the Sox purposely didn't sign Lester when they had a chance fore presumably less money than he'll get this winter so they can trade him away for pieces to rent Giancarlo Stanton for two years before he wants his 10 year $300 million deal? And then they re-sign Lester for near market value in the winter of 2014-2015? I honestly think that's more fantasyland than anything else. The Marlins should win 75 - 80 games this year with a reasonably young team. I don't see them dealing Stanton this offseason. If they tank in 2015 then yeah, a year from now, he gets dealt, but meanwhile if the Sox aren't signing Lester, they have that hole to fill. Finding ace type pitchers isn't that easy and nobody in the current system rates that highly. So the Sox need a power bat and an ace to replace Lester. I hope somehow that the potential Lester, Lackey, and Miller deals bring the Sox these assets. More likely I think the Sox will get a subsidized Kemp in the offseason. Then you just don't understand that Lester's market was extremely difficult to set last winter.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 30, 2014 13:41:25 GMT -5
Which, in economics, is known as "what the market will bear" or "market rate." You are dealing with an inelastic resource and limited demand. It's eBay with 30 billionaires. This doesn't exist in economics, except in collectables. What is the market rate for a Picasso? Hmm, depends on whether two crazy billionaires show up to the auction, each never in their life hearing the words "you can't have it" or just one of them. Those two crazy guys don't set the market for every piece of art. Sure it does. Look at a barrel of heating oil or 100 cu mtrs of natural gas on the market today. Now look again in Jan if we have another winter like the last three. Same with orange juice or coffee after a freeze in the south or a fungal blight in coffee producing nations. Supply and demand drive prices. In MLB there is extremely limited supply of elite players available on the free agent market. There is more demand for those players than supply. Price points follow. Although, I guess a cogent argument could be made that, for the Yankees, they do see players as collectables.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 30, 2014 13:48:36 GMT -5
Which, in economics, is known as "what the market will bear" or "market rate." You are dealing with an inelastic resource and limited demand. It's eBay with 30 billionaires. This doesn't exist in economics, except in collectables. What is the market rate for a Picasso? Hmm, depends on whether two crazy billionaires show up to the auction, each never in their life hearing the words "you can't have it" or just one of them. Those two crazy guys don't set the market for every piece of art. Ehh - some people think of free agency as an auction rather than a market. However, it is really a limited market, or a really big auction, as it contains elements of both - you are buying expected wins (performance), but while there is only one Jon Lester, there are hundreds of wins available. The object is to get the most wins on your team given the available wins as distributed in players then available, but there are only so many distribution choices around. Lester is neither a replaceable commodity (widget) nor a unique piece of art/real estate. He is somewhere in between.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 30, 2014 13:51:41 GMT -5
In MLB there is extremely limited supply of elite players available on the free agent market. There is more demand for those players than supply. Price points follow. Last I saw (and perhaps the research has changed as I never tried to replicate it), elite players are not paid significantly more on a wins/$ basis than non-elite players. Basically, if a player is roughly expected to be a 2-4 WAR player or a 6-10 WAR player, they are still paid the same WAR/$. Perhaps that is out of date; it seemed like it should be otherwise. The issue is not the price of the player escalating exponentially (rather than linearly), but rather that you have only 25 active roster spots and only so many ways to cram expected wins into them given the available resources.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 30, 2014 14:01:10 GMT -5
I do not believe there ever was a hometown discount. I find it hard to believe that an intial low-ball offer was all it took to break off negotiations with Lester. If he really wanted to come back to Boston, then grow up and nail down a deal. I do not blame Lester for wanting max dollar, but I do believe he was insincere when he say he would gladly take a discount. FWIW, I don't think any player should take substantially less than what they are worth. I never saw the reasoning behind giving billionaires a discount. There are other factors when signing a contract, both monetary and non monetary. Taxes, market size, endorsements all have monetary factors. How many DnD commercials does Lester get on NESN. Other factors like family, comfort, location, team competition also relate. Lester, like Pedroia and Ortiz, could leave money on the table to resign with the Red Sox. I just don't see it happening after he is traded.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 30, 2014 14:38:49 GMT -5
This doesn't exist in economics, except in collectables. What is the market rate for a Picasso? Hmm, depends on whether two crazy billionaires show up to the auction, each never in their life hearing the words "you can't have it" or just one of them. Those two crazy guys don't set the market for every piece of art. Sure it does. Look at a barrel of heating oil or 100 cu mtrs of natural gas on the market today. Now look again in Jan if we have another winter like the last three. Same with orange juice or coffee after a freeze in the south or a fungal blight in coffee producing nations. Supply and demand drive prices. In MLB there is extremely limited supply of elite players available on the free agent market. There is more demand for those players than supply. Price points follow. Although, I guess a cogent argument could be made that, for the Yankees, they do see players as collectables. There's more at play here. Players aren't in a commodity market, where the cost of production is very well understood and has been long-ago factored out as an influence on the price. That's not true for this market, where incomplete or badly understood information can really distort what goes down with a projection. In the latter case, we only have to point to Ryan Howard and the nearly incomprehensible evaluation that was done on his past performance extrapolated into a future that never, ever, came to pass. There's also the issue of discount rates in a marketplace that's been changing rapidly with the advent of the new CBA. How do you value future performance? That's really what you're paying for. This is not a perfect market.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Jul 30, 2014 14:40:11 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't think any player should take substantially less than what they are worth. I never saw the reasoning behind giving billionaires a discount. There are other factors when signing a contract, both monetary and non monetary. Taxes, market size, endorsements all have monetary factors. How many DnD commercials does Lester get on NESN. Other factors like family, comfort, location, team competition also relate. Lester, like Pedroia and Ortiz, could leave money on the table to resign with the Red Sox. I just don't see it happening after he is traded. Hope town discounts are less common in baseball. But you see it all the time in other sports with strict salary caps. Take less money and allow the team to bring in more talent. For some veterans who already made the big dollars, championships are more important. But again, I do not expect a player to take a discount. My only gripe is ownership has taken too much criticism IMO on Lester deal. Its take two to tango.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 30, 2014 15:03:07 GMT -5
Bye. Lester for Dylan Bundy. Too much risk for pitchers, particularly over 30. Now that we're all on the same page, on to getting Stanton.
|
|
|