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.
Lester, Gomes & cash traded to OAK for Cespedes + draft pick
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 4, 2014 17:47:51 GMT -5
We traded 1/2 year of Lester plus a probable 1st round pick for 3 times as much controlability of Cespedes plus a definite compensation round pick. Lester even cost more. This was a no brainer. Maybe they could have gotten a better deal but this was a good deal. I'm not buying all the "hometown discount" stuff. Lester is going to sign a contract around $150 mil or above. People are saying here he maybe would have signed earlier for $100 mil. Dream on.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 4, 2014 19:17:36 GMT -5
I hope that part of the valuation of Lester..and the subsequent trade...would include just how difficult it is to develop a LH starter that has been as good as he has the last 6 years. While the down years should be noted...they don't undermine how good he has been. He has, quite literally, been one of the best 5 LH starters over that period in all of baseball. The Red Sox will be very lucky to repeat his performance from one of their prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 4, 2014 21:13:08 GMT -5
But if they really wanted to resign Lester, why gamble setting him loose on the open marker for basically 1 year of Cespedes when they could've retained Lester and had the exclusive 15 day post WS window (as well as 2 months leading up to it) to make him a market or near market value offer? I hate to do this, but your comment made me remember this old post of yours: forum.soxprospects.com/post/81692/threadEven if you want to re-sign Lester, you trade him if the package you get back for him is of greater value than the extra money that you'd have to spend to sign him during the free agency period (as compared to the amount that it'd take to re-sign him in the period between the trade deadline and the start of free agency if you kept him). If you think Lester is not going to give you a substantial discount before he reaches free agency proper, it absolutely makes sense to trade him.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 4, 2014 23:52:31 GMT -5
I think we are being a little unreasonable, and overlooking the benefits of hindsight, in so roundly condemning the 2013-14 winter and spring. When the front office thought about what to offer Lester in Spring Training of 2014, they could look back over two years, his age 28 and 29 years, and see a 4.82 ERA in 2012, and a 4.52 ERA on Aug. 2, 2013, followed by nine great starts and a really great post-season. To watch the great season he had in 2014 and then fault the front office for not offering him more in Spring Training of 2014 seems completely unfair: you have to imagine them making decisions without knowing what was going to happen in 2014. Agree 100% You're being pretty selective in your characterization of Lester's record. His 2012 wasn't good, but it wasn't as bad as the 4.82 ERA makes it look. His FIP was 4.11, considerably lower than the ERA. And you can't write off what he did in the last three months of 2013 any more than I can write off what he did through Aug. 2 of that year. It's the totality of his performance that counts and he had an excellent regular season and spectacular PS in 2013. It's always easy to cherry-pick seasons or parts of seasons to make the point we want to make about a player. The fact is that coming into the 2014 season Jon Lester had established himself as a legit front-of-the-rotation SP. He entered the season with a career record of 100-56 and an ERA-plus of 117, including a run of years (that you didn't mention) from 2008 to 2011 of 144, 136, 134 and 124. Regarding the bolded portion, it's unfair to criticize the FO for not offering him more than what in ST? More than the 4 year/$68 million that has been widely reported? I think it's entirely fair to criticize the FO for not offering more than that.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 5, 2014 8:16:58 GMT -5
You're being pretty selective in your characterization of Lester's record. His 2012 wasn't good, but it wasn't as bad as the 4.82 ERA makes it look. His FIP was 4.11, considerably lower than the ERA. And you can't write off what he did in the last three months of 2013 any more than I can write off what he did through Aug. 2 of that year. It's the totality of his performance that counts and he had an excellent regular season and spectacular PS in 2013. It's always easy to cherry-pick seasons or parts of seasons to make the point we want to make about a player. The fact is that coming into the 2014 season Jon Lester had established himself as a legit front-of-the-rotation SP. He entered the season with a career record of 100-56 and an ERA-plus of 117, including a run of years (that you didn't mention) from 2008 to 2011 of 144, 136, 134 and 124. Regarding the bolded portion, it's unfair to criticize the FO for not offering him more than what in ST? More than the 4 year/$68 million that has been widely reported? I think it's entirely fair to criticize the FO for not offering more than that. Sorry, I was assuming that we all knew that Lester was excellent in 2008-2011. But it seemed like everyone was ignoring that he was not from the start of 2012 through the start of August 2013. And "It's the totality of his performance that counts" seems just not right. Everything counts, but recent performance, especially for a guy his age, should count more. How relevant to future performance (say, at ages 34-36) is that 144 ERA+ at age 24? Again, using only info available in ST 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 5, 2014 8:54:13 GMT -5
You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester. They gave up nothing of value if you by that you mean that Lester was going to FA whether he finished the season with the RS or with some other team. But I think the whole fiasco has to be looked at in the context of their botched opportunity to sign him last winter or spring. This argument is really based on hindsight. Who predicted after a terrible 2012 and a 2013 that was up and down that Lester was going to have the best season of his career in 2014 and should be paid like he will always perform like he did this year while just ignoring the previous 2 years? The range in salaries starts at the 4/$70 that the Red Sox initially offered. Lester's camp gambled on a bounce-back season and that's what he had. If he had another 2012, he'd be getting food stamps this winter. /sarc Neither the Red Sox, nor Lester wanted to get the contract done before the season. Lester was counting on a great year to raise his value and the Red Sox didn't want to risk paying him like that if he didn't have that kind of season. Both sides were correct.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 5, 2014 8:55:39 GMT -5
You're being pretty selective in your characterization of Lester's record. His 2012 wasn't good, but it wasn't as bad as the 4.82 ERA makes it look. His FIP was 4.11, considerably lower than the ERA. And you can't write off what he did in the last three months of 2013 any more than I can write off what he did through Aug. 2 of that year. It's the totality of his performance that counts and he had an excellent regular season and spectacular PS in 2013. It's always easy to cherry-pick seasons or parts of seasons to make the point we want to make about a player. The fact is that coming into the 2014 season Jon Lester had established himself as a legit front-of-the-rotation SP. He entered the season with a career record of 100-56 and an ERA-plus of 117, including a run of years (that you didn't mention) from 2008 to 2011 of 144, 136, 134 and 124. Regarding the bolded portion, it's unfair to criticize the FO for not offering him more than what in ST? More than the 4 year/$68 million that has been widely reported? I think it's entirely fair to criticize the FO for not offering more than that. The point is that Lester is too inconsistent to be paid like Greinke. I mean he had one Greinke-like season. That doesn't mean he deserves his money.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 5, 2014 10:39:46 GMT -5
To be fair Greinke isn't exactly a model of consistency either.
Does Lester "deserve" the money? That's a hypothetical question. He's going to get it.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 5, 2014 22:14:54 GMT -5
I think the trade that will look bad is the Kelly/Craig trade. I didn't like it at the time because I thought they were forcing the issue with the "we have to get MLB talent back."
Kelly has been alright I guess but he has a high bb rate and low k/9 rate which is not a good recipe. Craig, well I don't think it's totally fair to give up on him but he didn't look good.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 6, 2014 1:04:45 GMT -5
I think the trade that will look bad is the Kelly/Craig trade. I didn't like it at the time because I thought they were forcing the issue with the "we have to get MLB talent back." Kelly has been alright I guess but he has a high bb rate and low k/9 rate which is not a good recipe. Craig, well I don't think it's totally fair to give up on him but he didn't look good. You're being very kind. He's looked bad, unable to drive balls to left at all. And while he can still get balls out to right field, he seems to have a real problem figuring out which pitches to try to drive that way. He watches a lot of pitches go by on the outside edge.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 6, 2014 6:46:14 GMT -5
Agree about Craig, but there's no way he's 100%. Hard judge him fairly. Maybe he should have started his rehab early.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2014 6:57:51 GMT -5
The fact that they didn't shut him down is a little worrisome to me. If they thought his decline was injury related, I think they would've shut him down after August at least.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 6, 2014 10:01:37 GMT -5
The fact that they didn't shut him down is a little worrisome to me. If they thought his decline was injury related, I think they would've shut him down after August at least. True enough and I have noted the same. What is of interest to me is Farrell saying in paraphrase 'that he has things to work on that he is aware of and will do so in the offseason'......whatever the hell that means...Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2014 10:31:51 GMT -5
Because of his injury, Craig basically had no offseason program, and the most commonly cited cause of his struggles this year are that he just never developed a strong base and never got his timing down at the plate.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 6, 2014 11:01:48 GMT -5
Yeah, too early to tell on Craig ... the Cardinals trade is the only one where the Red Sox gave up an asset of any value to them (Lackey in '15) since this year was worthless to the team, so that's the one that they could "lose" on its face. But, honestly, I've come around on that trade since I realized how cheap Craig was against the luxury tax cap. If he comes back at all, that's a real solid trade.
The other trades can only be judged in hypothetical "could they have done better?" which is tough to do ... although I definitely lean toward "yes" when it comes to Lester.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 6, 2014 11:34:56 GMT -5
Agree about Craig, but there's no way he's 100%. Hard judge him fairly. Maybe he should have started his rehab early. With Craig there is a sustained track record of success to look upon and hope. Agreed if seems he should have been shut down in hind sight, especially with lingering issues being blamed for both his and Middlebrooks terrible 2014 campaigns. My problems are the same.. If both were so beat up with serious health related problems that required long term rest and Boston clearly going nowhere, made both unable to look like AAA at the plate.. Just why were both still playing come late September? In what kind of helpful 2015 scenario does that make 1 iota of sense?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -5
Because of his injury, Craig basically had no offseason program, and the most commonly cited cause of his struggles this year are that he just never developed a strong base and never got his timing down at the plate. I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 6, 2014 13:26:59 GMT -5
Because of his injury, Craig basically had no offseason program, and the most commonly cited cause of his struggles this year are that he just never developed a strong base and never got his timing down at the plate. I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project. Incredibly hard to project.....Since the Triassic Age ballplayers had no offseason workouts. Ted Williams (ok, not the norm) came back from 3 years away in WWII and two more in Korea and did not miss a beat. This may have no bearing, but watching Craig's bat head pointing at the pitcher, as in Youk, makes me cringe. I'm sure that is a timing mechanism, but even if the bat is moved back into some semblance of position as the pitch arrives, the process still involves unnecessary movement. I recall Phil Plantier rising up from a deep crouch and John Valentin at the too-early end of his career bobbing up and down as the pitch was delivered. I'm not saying that these are necessarily the same as Craig's and Youk's efforts but the extra pronounced movement is a commonality.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 6, 2014 13:33:50 GMT -5
Because of his injury, Craig basically had no offseason program, and the most commonly cited cause of his struggles this year are that he just never developed a strong base and never got his timing down at the plate. I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project. He's making a lot of money over the next few years, but it's the sort of money I don't care about at all, i.e. it doesn't affect the cap (it's just affecting FSG profit). In cap dollars, he's only making ~$6 million, which doesn't hurt the team at all. I don't know that "since the 2013 ASB" is all that dispositive. A bad couple of weeks, then a Lisfranc injury ... now, I'm not arguing that he *isn't* done, just that the data we have have too many confounding factors to base hard conclusions on them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2014 14:14:13 GMT -5
Because of his injury, Craig basically had no offseason program, and the most commonly cited cause of his struggles this year are that he just never developed a strong base and never got his timing down at the plate. I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project. Yeah, the idea is that a lack of core/leg strength (which is vitally important for your swing) slowed his bat this year, and that maybe a full offseason means he can get it back. Players do sometimes just have one-year dips in their bat speed that they can recover from ( this ill-fated Keith Law prediction comes to mind, for instance). Like you said, we shouldn't assume that he'll return to the player he was in prior years, but we also shouldn't assume that he's a lost cause, either. Craig is a huge risk in that he could be great or he could be terrible, but the Red Sox aren't counting on him to be a starter-level guy (and, as braintoast mentioned, he's cheap in terms of cap dollars), so I think they can they afford to bear the risk. (Whether that means the Lackey trade was a good one is another question entirely. I am on record as being very much against it, which I still am. Think of it this way-- would you trade Kelly and Craig for a minimum-salaried Lackey this offseason? You'd do it in a heartbeat, right?)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2014 14:21:11 GMT -5
(Whether that means the Lackey trade was a good one is another question entirely. I am on record as being very much against it, which I still am. Think of it this way-- would you trade Kelly and Craig for a minimum-salaried Lackey this offseason? You'd do it in a heartbeat, right?) Another way of looking at it: Doubront last offseason Like Kelly, people were talking about his upside as a potential #3 starter eventually with years of control. Would you have traded him for one year of minimum salary Lackey? I agree with you, I probably would, especially considering that Lackey will be fairly easy to extend in all likelihood. He's probably going to command a decent sized salary, probably 16M AAV, but for a limited number of years. For a team like us that a manageable risk to take saying the least. Unless Craig really rebounds in a major way or Kelly reaches his potential, I can't really support the move.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 6, 2014 15:19:59 GMT -5
I would have traded Lackey straight up for Kelly, and probably would have been willing to roll the dice on Craig at the time but given the additional data now, I would not have wanted Craig included. I think Craig's done.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 6, 2014 17:23:31 GMT -5
I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project. Yeah, the idea is that a lack of core/leg strength (which is vitally important for your swing) slowed his bat this year, and that maybe a full offseason means he can get it back. Players do sometimes just have one-year dips in their bat speed that they can recover from ( this ill-fated Keith Law prediction comes to mind, for instance). Like you said, we shouldn't assume that he'll return to the player he was in prior years, but we also shouldn't assume that he's a lost cause, either. Craig is a huge risk in that he could be great or he could be terrible, but the Red Sox aren't counting on him to be a starter-level guy (and, as braintoast mentioned, he's cheap in terms of cap dollars), so I think they can they afford to bear the risk. (Whether that means the Lackey trade was a good one is another question entirely. I am on record as being very much against it, which I still am. Think of it this way-- would you trade Kelly and Craig for a minimum-salaried Lackey this offseason? You'd do it in a heartbeat, right?) This remains a mystery to me. I haven't seen an explanation as to why the RS considered Lackey's oddball contractual situation to be a burden, rather than a huge plus. I've seen message board speculation that he would have made himself a huge pain in the ass in 2015 if he had to play for minimum salary. But once he was traded to the Cardinals, he quickly said he would play for the $500k without a problem. I wish the RS had tried to work out something that made sense for both sides. They could have offered him two years (2015 and 2016) at $10 million a year. That would have guaranteed him $19.5 million more than he's guaranteed now and given the RS a pretty reliable SP at a bargain basement price.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 6, 2014 21:34:04 GMT -5
I hated both the Lester and Lackey trade. In my mind the Miller trade was a steal, Peavy trade prob got us an average pen arm, and the other two were awful, but the Lackey trade has the potential to have some lasting upside if Craig can be what he was (or close) and Kelly proves to be a solid #3. Still, personally, I wouldn't have done either deal and would've worked the Lackey contract into a 2 year deal or explored trades for him in the off season where I could've gotten 20-25 teams involved.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 7, 2014 7:34:57 GMT -5
To be fair Greinke isn't exactly a model of consistency either. Does Lester "deserve" the money? That's a hypothetical question. He's going to get it. No, the question was does Lester deserve Greinke money? Greinke is way more consistent than Lester. And better.
|
|
|