|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 20, 2014 13:45:48 GMT -5
I agree jmei, I think acquiring Lee could be a good move for this FO which seems to be looking for a way to save face while also improving the team in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 20, 2014 14:10:53 GMT -5
So.....what would everyone be willing to give up for Cliff Lee? Tough to judge what he's worth and what other are willing to give up - but since he has been injured, is old and is VERY expensive....I'm gonna set the bar low:
My pitch: Ranaudo/Webster Jamie Callahan (or lower ranked player) - Philly pitches in a 1-2 mil to keep the Sox under the luxury tax + 2.5mil on the last year of the contract if they have to pickup the option.
I know this isn't a 'great haul' but on the free agent market I think Lee would probably get 2 years/40-45mil - MAX. so you're really paying over market for the contract.
What would everyone else give up?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 20, 2014 14:13:49 GMT -5
I'm pretty much hopeless on anyone from the Phillies. Amaro is the guy who (reportedly) asked for JBJ in a trade for Michael Young and offered Howard with no cash for Webster and one of JBJ or WMB. And then wanted Xander plus 3 other prospects for Lee + no cash last year and wants 3 top prospects for Hamels. Oh and he refuses to pay a dime for any Papelbon trade. He is delusional.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 20, 2014 17:19:51 GMT -5
Trading for an almost 36 year old ( he will be 36 on August 30) Cliff Lee would be just compounding the mistakes made in the Lester negotiations. This team needs at least two bats and I don't think an old and injured Cliff Lee is worth the money or prospects that he would cost to sign him.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 20, 2014 17:24:08 GMT -5
Trading good prospects for a 36 year old with a large contract and elbow issues sounds like a recipe for success to me. (Sarcasm)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 20, 2014 20:12:38 GMT -5
If you believe in Brock Holt and Nava, the only place for Mookie is the outfield. And if that's the case, there are zero open spots in the lineup.
There's going to be more holes in the rotation than the lineup by this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2014 21:57:50 GMT -5
I like Lee, but this is silly. Cut the nonsense and re-sign Lester and keep the kids. Lester would be 36 when his contract ends.
I get that signing pitchers 30 or older can be risky, but that doesn't mean that you never sign pitchers at age 30. If you are Lester is that guy. I think that's less risky than dealing actual prospects for an even more expensive 36 year old guy whose best days are in the past.
Oh, if my team needed a strong starter to get us over the hump, I'd be interested in Lee, but that's not the case here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 21, 2014 8:26:52 GMT -5
A few things: First, Lee is not actually much more expensive than Lester. I'm operating under the assumption that re-signing Lester would take something like 5/$120m or 6/$144m. That's a $24m AAV. Lee's contract comes with a $26.25m AAV, which is only nominally higher. This front office has been happy to pay higher AAVs for a shorter-term commitment, which is exactly what Lee would represent. Second, Lee's age is less of a concern because we know that he's pitched at an elite level (one of the five best pitchers in the league in his age 32-35 seasons) through his 30s, and so it's unlikely that he'll just fall off a cliff at age 36. The reason long-term contracts which lock in a pitcher through his mid-30s is risky is because (a) most pitchers fall off as they enter their 30s and (b) it's hard to project performance four or five years out. Well, neither of those applies to Lee-- we already know he hasn't fallen off as he enters his 30s, and we only have to project performance one and two years out. That alleviates a lot of the performance/injury risk that I worry about with signing Lester through his mid-30s. Finally, the fact that he's old and has some injury issues (recall that his flexor tendon strain is much lower-risk than most elbow injuries) just means his trade acquisition cost is lower than it should be for a player of his considerable talents (remember, he's been one of the five best pitchers in baseball, one who has been head-and-shoulders better than Lester). A good analogy here is with Curt Schilling (first raised by FTHW), a similar pitcher who was older but was still producing at an elite level. They'll have a tough time finding an upgrade of that caliber anywhere else on the roster. Add that kind of talent to a team whose core is as good as any other team in the AL East, and they'll have a good chance of winning the division next year.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 21, 2014 9:53:58 GMT -5
Here's Rosenthall saying GMs are speculating the Phills could be looking for more salary relief in a Lee deal opposed for trying to get a Xander type prospect for him which obviously isn't happening. www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/david-price-tampa-bay-rays-pitcher-trade-rumors-chicago-cubs-072014 So, one rival executive suggests, why not take a different approach? The Phillies couldn’t get Xander Bogaerts for Cliff Lee last summer, and they might not get the equivalent of Bogaerts even for Cole Hamels, who is owed $96 million from 2015 to ’19, including a $6 million buyout on a $20 million club option in ’20. Perhaps it would be better for the Phillies to forget about landing prospects and simply seek the financial relief of trading players such as Lee and closer Jonathan Papelbon, who is generating little interest, according to major-league sources.
“We haven’t ruled anything out,” Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. said when I asked him about the concept. “It’s really not about the money. It’s never been about the money with our ownership group. We just have to find creative ways to improve our club, short-term and long-term.
|
|
|
Cliff Lee
Jul 22, 2014 5:32:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 22, 2014 5:32:55 GMT -5
Lee treated like a rag doll by the Guants last night. 12 hits and six runs in 5 and 2/3 innings.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 22, 2014 8:13:02 GMT -5
Jmei, while it's true that Lee's dominated and aged well, etc. it's also true the type of elbow injury he suffered is less concerning than most. It's also true that he's 36 and has a large AAV on his contract. There's legit reason for concern and guys at his age can suddenly fall off a cliff. It wouldn't be the worst thing if you are correct and the cost is minimal, but I rather give Lester 6/140 than get Lee.
However, if the cost is that low (ie Ranaudo) then give me both Lester and Lee.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Cliff Lee
Jul 22, 2014 8:49:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Jul 22, 2014 8:49:29 GMT -5
We didn't even scout him last night so i would say this has no shot.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 8, 2014 10:48:53 GMT -5
I'm bumping this up since he could be a target. If his elbow issues (Strain) aren't major he would be the cheapest, trade option, available to us. I think the prospect package wouldn't be crazy and maybe they send some money back our way.
He had 13 starts last year and in ten of them he gave up 3 or less runs. He had a few stinkers giving up 8 on opening day and 6 on two occasions.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 10:53:16 GMT -5
The thing about Lee is that it's entirely a gamble on health, and we (the public) have pretty much zero insight on the extent to which his elbow issues might affect him going forward. If he's healthy, he's a clear ace and well worth his salary. If he's not, he's an albatross that the Phillies couldn't give away even if they ate half his contract. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, but without his medicals, it's hard to say where he lies in that wide range of possibilities. But he's a guy I haven't forgotten either and would be willing to take a chance on if the medicals present a low enough risk profile.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 9, 2014 9:22:17 GMT -5
Jmei,
Say he's healthy what would you be willing to give up. Do you think given his age and contract we could keep the big five of Swihart, Owens, Margot, E Rod and Devers? You think they would bite on Mareero and Johnson/Ranadou.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 9, 2014 12:25:47 GMT -5
Jmei, Say he's healthy what would you be willing to give up. Do you think given his age and contract we could keep the big five of Swihart, Owens, Margot, E Rod and Devers? You think they would bite on Mareero and Johnson/Ranadou. There is no possible way for the Red Sox to have enough confidence in his health (given his recent history) to both give up a legit prospect haul and take his salary.
|
|
|
Cliff Lee
Oct 9, 2014 12:44:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 12:44:13 GMT -5
The thing is, Lee's health won't be a binary yes/no question. It's a question of risk assessment in terms of how likely he is to be healthy next season, and that's going to be a gray area. Trading for him will be a risk either way, but if that risk is low enough, he's worth pursuing.
I agree with chavo that a significant package is unlikely considering Lee's salary. Philadelphia's farm system is weak enough that a package of, say, Marrero and Ranaudo might be enough.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 9, 2014 13:05:40 GMT -5
And then there's the Amaro factor.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 10, 2014 20:57:47 GMT -5
And then there's the Amaro factor. Amaro needs to learn to factor better, or he's out of the equation. With the amount of money he's burned on some of those contracts, he should think about cutting his losses.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 10, 2014 21:30:06 GMT -5
And then there's the Amaro factor. Amaro needs to learn to factor better, or he's out of the equation. With the amount of money he's burned on some of those contracts, he should think about cutting his losses. He should have been out of the equation a few years ago, but I guess he's GM for life. He'll probably sign Shields for 5 years $120 million/6th year option with a 25 team no-trade list and a $15 million buyout. I think that's the same model of every guy he's signed for last 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 10, 2014 22:56:10 GMT -5
It would seem that the Phillies will let Lee establish his value again and then trade him. Maybe by the All Star break next year. I wouldn't touch him until he reestablishes his value. If he does. If we guess wrong, as we may well have already done with Craig, we get body slammed for 2 years. The Redsox should be making a concerted effort to never screw up such deals. Injuries are going to happen but why intentionally put the team in a position to have a 50% chance of getting nothing from a $26 mil contract? Even if Philly pays half and he costs zero prospects. He's damaged goods to me.
|
|
oleary25
Rookie
Posts: 121
Member is Online
|
Post by oleary25 on Dec 20, 2014 18:58:25 GMT -5
This may sound like a bad idea but what about trading for Cliff Lee ? I know he's older and ended on an injury last year but he has 1 year left on his deal (2 if he reaches 200 ip this season 27.5 mil w/ a 11 mil buyout). His velocity was down as well to 90mph. He's a battle tested ace that the Phillies probably want off their books. I was thinking of possibly trying to trade for Hamels and Lee. By taking on so much salary it would likely lessen the amount of prospects we'd have to give. Henry did say he'd be willing to go past the luxury tax this year. Also if Lee gets hurt or doesn't reach 200 ip he turns into just a 1 year deal essentially. I see some risk in this but a lot of upside. What's your guys take?
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 20, 2014 19:57:25 GMT -5
Frankly I wouldn't mind them looking into Lee alone with quite a bit of dollars coming with him. Definitely a long shot, but I've always loved watching Cliff Lee pitch.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 20, 2014 19:57:50 GMT -5
This may sound like a bad idea but what about trading for Cliff Lee ? I know he's older and ended on an injury last year but he has 1 year left on his deal (2 if he reaches 200 ip this season 27.5 mil w/ a 11 mil buyout). His velocity was down as well to 90mph. He's a battle tested ace that the Phillies probably want off their books. I was thinking of possibly trying to trade for Hamels and Lee. By taking on so much salary it would likely lessen the amount of prospects we'd have to give. Henry did say he'd be willing to go past the luxury tax this year. Also if Lee gets hurt or doesn't reach 200 ip he turns into just a 1 year deal essentially. I see some risk in this but a lot of upside. What's your guys take? I thought this one through before the rash of trades and signings. Four flies in that ointment: 1. We'd have 7 starters most of whom are young and healthy 2. The only way that could work out would be for Lee to both be more valuable (about 2.5 WAR better) than whoever was the #4 but also pitch less than 200 innings. Sort of rooting for both sides. Otherwise, it becomes the equivalent of trading for Hamels with 5/$147 (there's a Lee buyout involved) and Hamels will require guaranteeing his option year. 3. The Lee buyout is $12.5m which I understand would go against the 2016 AAV. 4. If Lee demanded his option be picked up to approve a trade, no way any team will eat two years of albatross. A lot more risk than you suggest and is a much better fit for the Cubs than the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Cliff Lee
Dec 20, 2014 20:12:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Dec 20, 2014 20:12:32 GMT -5
Given the arm trouble lee has had recently, the doctors would really need to conduct a complete due diligence first. Plus who knows what Amaro would ask for in return.
I think cherrington is looking for pitchers around or preferably under thirty that have the potential to throw 200 innings.
|
|