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.
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 23, 2013 14:24:40 GMT -5
It's really a difficult process; you just never know what another team is going to do and you have to just stick with your own plan and hope for the best. Once you start guessing on what other teams might do that's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's not forget there is still a high risk with these guys no matter how good they look in other leagues.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 23, 2013 14:36:54 GMT -5
A few questions for the board. 1. Could you see Lackey retiring befor going from 16 million to 500k? He's getting up there in age. 2. How high would you be willing to go on a Lester extension? I suppose anything is possible with Lackey, but he strikes me as a guy who has something to prove and wants to earn his money. That last year gives him a great opportunity to do so as the first 3 were a complete bust. However, I think it may be more likely that the Sox work out a 2 year deal with him instead of exercising that option where he gets more money guaranteed and the Sox get 2 cheap years from him. I hate to even speculate but maybe 2 years 12 million or something... To me Lester is a HUGE wildcard. The only way to effectively do it is to go through next season - see what he does - see how your young guys develop then make a decision. I would not go beyond an Anibal Sanchez type of contract for him. Next year is his age 30 season so he's entering FA as a 31 year old who has been anything but consistent in his career with stretches of being much less than desired. However, he's pretty much held off prolonged stretches and has been a workhorse. He also seems to be coming around, which could be his maturation. 5 years 80-90 Million seems about right for Lester.... Basically, the contract they gave Lackey. I'm pretty sure the numbers back up that he should be paid in that range and given his durability, and the lower salary numbers (Buchholz, Doubront, Lackey's option and other young arms coming up) the Sox do and should have in the rotation it should fit just fine into the budget.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 23, 2013 20:18:16 GMT -5
Watching game 1 and Wainwright seems like a comp for a Lester extension. He will start his new five year 97.5 million extension at age 32.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 24, 2013 11:05:34 GMT -5
Watching game 1 and Wainwright seems like a comp for a Lester extension. He will start his new five year 97.5 million extension at age 32. It could be a comp, if the Sox resign Lester this winter a year before he hits the open market. It is worth noting that Wainwright has been a better pitcher than Lester. I don't think anyone would argue that when Lester is at his peak he's every bit as good as Wainwright, but he doesn't seem to be able to be at his peak over a full season and that's back by almost any number you want to look at: fip, xfip, WAR, ERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9... If the Sox wait until he is a free agent then his price goes go up and the Wainwright deal is a difficult comp to use since it was signed when he still had another year of team control. Wainwright would have gotten a MUCH larger deal if he had waited to become a free agent rather than signing a year early. Postseason performance has been talked about in another thread and it could actually apply to Lester. His numbers are putting him into Curt Schilling territory as a post season icon. If he happens to pitch again this series and dominate again which leads to a WS win, watch out.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 24, 2013 15:18:31 GMT -5
I don't see it. Lester with 5/97m won't come from Boston. Lester could on the open market perhaps, but not sure his stuff will last that long. He is a power pitcher and remember how he was doing earlier when that cutter wasn't cutting? It's got to have that bit, it's not and he is in trouble. Look at Sanchez. Less mileage on his arm, throws harder, less wear and tear and younger. Better bet to perform and got less.
Wainright can work with his curve better than Lester, doesn't have to rely on his power. A better bet than Lester. I'd like to retain Lester, but nowhere near 80-90m. Even 70m.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 24, 2013 15:39:48 GMT -5
I'm with you on your concern but he's easily a 70m arm over 5 years. It's not realistic to think he can be signed for less. Maybe that's your point and you want them to move on. Similar to Jacoby. Everyone would love to have him but not for the $$ someone will spend.
|
|
|
Post by ray9360 on Oct 25, 2013 8:22:25 GMT -5
You're joking right? Or are you predicting an end of the year rotation? Ranaudo and Webster are not ready for the rotation. Also, if you are predicting a Lackey trade then where is that player because no chance a team that went to the WS trades Lackey for prospects. It makes no sense. Plus, where is Doubront and Dempster? Dude really what i think is what I think and i made a mistake i ment this: Lester Buckholz Peavy Lackey and Webster. I think he is ready all he needs to work on is his control. Plus my line up is a good one because i honestly dont think the red sox will go and resign ellsburry or salti.
|
|
|
Post by ray9360 on Oct 25, 2013 8:28:59 GMT -5
But i do think they will resign Mike napoli
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 25, 2013 8:35:54 GMT -5
You're joking right? Or are you predicting an end of the year rotation? Ranaudo and Webster are not ready for the rotation. Also, if you are predicting a Lackey trade then where is that player because no chance a team that went to the WS trades Lackey for prospects. It makes no sense. Plus, where is Doubront and Dempster? Dude really what i think is what I think and i made a mistake i ment this: Lester Buckholz Peavy Lackey and Webster. I think he is ready all he needs to work on is his control. Plus my line up is a good one because i honestly dont think the red sox will go and resign ellsburry or salti. At this point with Buchholz still battling shoulder issues, Lester throwing a ton of hard innings this fall, and the general uncertainty of Peavy's health it really makes no sense to trade away any of the 6 projected starters this offseason. If there is a trade to be made I'd lean now more towards a sell high of one of the younger arms (Webster, RDLR, Ranaudo, Barnes, etc). But really, I like the depth we have now both in Boston and AAA for next year. We'd have to be given an obvious upgrade somewhere to even consider dipping into what should be our biggest strength in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 25, 2013 8:38:13 GMT -5
You're joking right? Or are you predicting an end of the year rotation? Ranaudo and Webster are not ready for the rotation. Also, if you are predicting a Lackey trade then where is that player because no chance a team that went to the WS trades Lackey for prospects. It makes no sense. Plus, where is Doubront and Dempster? Why is that out of the realm of possibilities? When you start building a team around what they accomplished instead of looking ahead then you're doing a disservice to both the fans and the team. A team on the cusp at making a run who hasn't sniffed October baseball (or got out of the first round for that matter) will want to give up good prospects for a pitcher like Lackey. The Red Sox will never get any higher value from him then what they will get in a potential off-season deal. Let's say if someone like the Rays offered a player like Wil Myers, you wouldn't consider it? I would think Lackey could get a better than or at least equal return as Shields. There are at least two replacement options this off-season with Kershaw and Masahiro Tanaka.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 25, 2013 8:38:39 GMT -5
?@sean_McAdam 13m Also worth noting: NESN alone is valued at $675 million, or just below what current owners paid for team, ballpark, network, etc. If this is near accurate, combined with the $28+M TV bonus every team will get this off season from the MLB TV deal, there is NO reason the Red Sox should be outbid on Tanaka if they really want him. The posting process is not one where there are multiple rounds of bidding. Each team can make one blind bid and the highest number gets to negotiate with the player on a contract. If the Red Sox want Tanaka, they'll figure out how much they think he's worth and try and translate that into how much they should bid for his rights (including some intelligence on how much other teams might bid). If they're interested, they'll bid what they think he's worth and no more-- to do otherwise is just bad business. Interesting part of this calculus is the flexibility a pitcher like Tanaka adds for other deals. For example, if Sox get a 24 yr old #2/3 starter for AAV of, say, $10M a year for 6 years, esp in a pitching market that just gave Lincecum 2 x $17.5M (and I'm not saying that's a good deal but it is a market-setting deal when it comes to agents doing their jobs), then the Sox would have the ability to actually trade two reasonably-priced starters. Convincing arguments could be made that one of these is a #2 with an absurdly affordable 2 year deal (Lackey), a #1 in his walk year (Lester), a very affordable #3 who occasionally pitches like a #2 and a #4 (Doubront), and Peavy 3/4 and Dempster 5. Factor that into a Tanaka deal, and the possible players who have been targeted for return in such deals and it could actually add to the factoring of how much to bid in the posting. Personally, I'd still love a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Doubront with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes in the wings. But could I see them, with strategic dealing (and perhaps an extension of Lester) ending up with a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Dempster with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes waiting Pretty intriguing depending on the opportunities, how tight the pitching market looks to be this off-season, and the rapidly escalating cost of free agents, especially with every team getting that reported $25-29M TV bonus money. You know that's going to burn a hole in some owners' pockets.
|
|
|
Post by ray9360 on Oct 25, 2013 9:09:23 GMT -5
The posting process is not one where there are multiple rounds of bidding. Each team can make one blind bid and the highest number gets to negotiate with the player on a contract. If the Red Sox want Tanaka, they'll figure out how much they think he's worth and try and translate that into how much they should bid for his rights (including some intelligence on how much other teams might bid). If they're interested, they'll bid what they think he's worth and no more-- to do otherwise is just bad business. Interesting part of this calculus is the flexibility a pitcher like Tanaka adds for other deals. For example, if Sox get a 24 yr old #2/3 starter for AAV of, say, $10M a year for 6 years, esp in a pitching market that just gave Lincecum 2 x $17.5M (and I'm not saying that's a good deal but it is a market-setting deal when it comes to agents doing their jobs), then the Sox would have the ability to actually trade two reasonably-priced starters. Convincing arguments could be made that one of these is a #2 with an absurdly affordable 2 year deal (Lackey), a #1 in his walk year (Lester), a very affordable #3 who occasionally pitches like a #2 and a #4 (Doubront), and Peavy 3/4 and Dempster 5. Factor that into a Tanaka deal, and the possible players who have been targeted for return in such deals and it could actually add to the factoring of how much to bid in the posting. Personally, I'd still love a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Doubront with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes in the wings. But could I see them, with strategic dealing (and perhaps an extension of Lester) ending up with a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Dempster with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes waiting Pretty intriguing depending on the opportunities, how tight the pitching market looks to be this off-season, and the rapidly escalating cost of free agents, especially with every team getting that reported $25-29M TV bonus money. You know that's going to burn a hole in some owners' pockets. Dude what about webster he is acording to mlb.com the best pitcher prospect in our system
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 25, 2013 12:19:09 GMT -5
Interesting part of this calculus is the flexibility a pitcher like Tanaka adds for other deals. For example, if Sox get a 24 yr old #2/3 starter for AAV of, say, $10M a year for 6 years, esp in a pitching market that just gave Lincecum 2 x $17.5M (and I'm not saying that's a good deal but it is a market-setting deal when it comes to agents doing their jobs), then the Sox would have the ability to actually trade two reasonably-priced starters. Convincing arguments could be made that one of these is a #2 with an absurdly affordable 2 year deal (Lackey), a #1 in his walk year (Lester), a very affordable #3 who occasionally pitches like a #2 and a #4 (Doubront), and Peavy 3/4 and Dempster 5. Factor that into a Tanaka deal, and the possible players who have been targeted for return in such deals and it could actually add to the factoring of how much to bid in the posting. Personally, I'd still love a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Doubront with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes in the wings. But could I see them, with strategic dealing (and perhaps an extension of Lester) ending up with a rotation of: Lester Buccholz Lackey Tanaka Dempster with Renaudo/Workman/Barnes waiting Pretty intriguing depending on the opportunities, how tight the pitching market looks to be this off-season, and the rapidly escalating cost of free agents, especially with every team getting that reported $25-29M TV bonus money. You know that's going to burn a hole in some owners' pockets. Dude what about webster he is acording to mlb.com the best pitcher prospect in our system I'm on the record saying Webster is a reliever as well as "Fool's Gold." I hope to be proven wrong but I'll stick by that assessment until proven so. Webster hasn't developed the command or control to start yet. I would say he may have the highest ceiling of pitchers in our system, but the floor is pretty low, too. In my mind that does not equal "best" by a long shot. If some GMs actually do believe Webster is still a #1 in waiting, I would take a good look at their top prospect and see if a trade can be made this winter.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 25, 2013 15:31:10 GMT -5
Why is that out of the realm of possibilities? When you start building a team around what they accomplished instead of looking ahead then you're doing a disservice to both the fans and the team. A team on the cusp at making a run who hasn't sniffed October baseball (or got out of the first round for that matter) will want to give up good prospects for a pitcher like Lackey. The Red Sox will never get any higher value from him then what they will get in a potential off-season deal. Let's say if someone like the Rays offered a player like Wil Myers, you wouldn't consider it? I would think Lackey could get a better than or at least equal return as Shields. There are at least two replacement options this off-season with Kershaw and Masahiro Tanaka. If the Red Sox could sign Kershaw and then flip Lackey for Myers - I would celebrate by running to Boston naked singing Sweet Caroline the whole way. I like the optimism though!
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 25, 2013 15:45:23 GMT -5
Why is that out of the realm of possibilities? When you start building a team around what they accomplished instead of looking ahead then you're doing a disservice to both the fans and the team. A team on the cusp at making a run who hasn't sniffed October baseball (or got out of the first round for that matter) will want to give up good prospects for a pitcher like Lackey. The Red Sox will never get any higher value from him then what they will get in a potential off-season deal. Let's say if someone like the Rays offered a player like Wil Myers, you wouldn't consider it? I would think Lackey could get a better than or at least equal return as Shields. There are at least two replacement options this off-season with Kershaw and Masahiro Tanaka. If the Red Sox could sign Kershaw and then flip Lackey for Myers - I would celebrate by running to Boston naked singing Sweet Caroline the whole way. I like the optimism though! Well, as jmei pointed out, Kershaw is not a free agent until after the 2015 season. The constant talks about his contract and turning down a $300mil deal made me think he was a free agent. Still, I believe you can get that level of a prospect for John Lackey after the season and post-season he just had.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2013 19:07:59 GMT -5
A trade of Myers for Lackey is roughly the equivalent of getting Kyle Lohse for Xander Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 25, 2013 19:23:36 GMT -5
A trade of Myers for Lackey is roughly the equivalent of getting Kyle Lohse for Xander Bogaerts. That goes too far James. AL teams were gunshy of the assortment of junk Lohse threw last offseason as a FA. Nothing lackey throws is remotely "junk" and he is definitely AL proven. Not that the 33YO Lackey is worth what the believe it was.. 29YO shields was? But he's definitely a better bet, at least now than a guy in Lohse who as of last off season had put together just *2* decent seasons in an unspectacular long career beforehand and those had been at a place (st louis) where some pitchers had been known previously to succeed there and regress after leaving.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2013 19:39:06 GMT -5
Lohse is also coming off two consecutive good seasons before this one, while Lackey is coming off one where he didn't pitch and another where he was broken/terrible. For one game I'll take a healthy Lackey over a healthy Lohse, but going blind into a season it would be much closer since Lohse is the much lower injury risk. I'd take Lackey, but I'm biased since I like watching him pitch. Not sure their value around the league is much different.
Anyhow, Wil Myers isn't even a prospect anymore - he's a top-10 right fielder. The Rays wouldn't take any pitcher the Red Sox have straight-up for him.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 25, 2013 23:56:43 GMT -5
I can see the Redsox making a run at Tanaka, and hope that they do, but retaining Lester might be more likely. I have no problem going into next year with essentially the same starters we have now. Of course who wouldn't want an upgrade but is it all that likely? I think not.
We are probably committed to developing our next starter from the talent we have coming up in the minors I would think. Or a special deal like Tanaka. They have some cash available and I hope it does go to pitching. A trade would appear to not be likely for a #1 or even a #2.
I'm sure their eye is always on the lookout for pitching talent which might become available in the right deal but I don't see a lot of opportunities out there which are likely. We need to keep letting some of our FA leave and pick up a Michael Wacha in the draft or via an international signing.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Oct 26, 2013 14:05:56 GMT -5
Tanaka or bust. Hopefully Cherington isn't scared off from spending bug bucks on Japanese pitching.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 26, 2013 14:45:05 GMT -5
I would hope the team gets into some negotiations with Lester and his agency right after the WS ends before making a posting commitment to Tanaka if they are going to make an and/or choice. lester seeking 17-20 and over 4Y? See what Tanaka could cost. posting fee comes back if a deal isn't worked out anyway. Not like Boston doesn't have multiple young talents already available nearly ready to step in soon, could even package some together for a SP during the next season, even sign Peavy to a low cost 2y extension more than likely.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,015
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 26, 2013 16:20:45 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm mistaken ... but won't there be starting pitchers available to be acquired next winter as well as this one?
We have six young pitchers who are not currently being considered for the rotation, and who have a chance to be anywhere from solid to outstanding. We have seven starting pitchers (counting Morales) among the MLB expected, barring trades, so there is no hole to fill at the MLB level.
So, what's the argument against waiting a year to see what we have (dirt cheap, remember) at AAA? Considering that we have the cash and the talent to acquire anyone we set our hearts on, the only guy you'd try to acquire this winter is one who projects to be better than anyone available next winter. Unless I'm mistaken again, Tanaka's picture is not next to that dictionary entry.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 26, 2013 17:57:53 GMT -5
Standing pat is clearly an option, one I have also proposed as to a large part likely in terms of starting pitchers, but I have no problem spending cash on upgrading the rotation and then maybe trading some of our young talent. We are probably in "win now" mode effectively. A guy like Doubront would be an attractive asset for a lot of teams, and the guys in Pawtucket would be also. It's an option.
I think we may be selling high on Doubront this year. And I like the guy overall. It's just that if we can upgrade without losing a pick and then use Doubront to fill an important need somewhere else, that is a decent option with this team.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 28, 2013 8:47:17 GMT -5
Considering that we have the cash and the talent to acquire anyone we set our hearts on, the only guy you'd try to acquire this winter is one who projects to be better than anyone available next winter. Unless I'm mistaken again, Tanaka's picture is not next to that dictionary entry. The standard starting rotation is made up of 5 pitchers at any one time. There is never a wrong time to acquire a pitcher who profiles as a front end starter. "Maybe we can get an even better pitcher in a future offseason" is not a reasonable objection.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 28, 2013 13:10:39 GMT -5
Dude really what i think is what I think and i made a mistake i ment this: Lester Buckholz Peavy Lackey and Webster. I think he is ready all he needs to work on is his control. Plus my line up is a good one because i honestly dont think the red sox will go and resign ellsburry or salti. I apologize for coming off a bit harsh before, and I'm not trying to be mean to you, but if it was a mistake then it's not what you really think so it seems we're in agreement. Is it possible Webster is in the rotation at some point next year? Of course not, same can be said for Ranaudo, but baring a couple injuries I think it's a remote possibility that Webster is in the rotation from day 1. He'd have to have an incredible spring and even with that, I think last year would make the team skeptical over spring performance. He utterly dominated the spring last year then got dominated in the majors. I didn't have any questions about your lineup short of, if they were trading multiple starters from this years team, I find it unlikely they won't be getting a staple for the lineup in return. Why is that out of the realm of possibilities? When you start building a team around what they accomplished instead of looking ahead then you're doing a disservice to both the fans and the team. I agree with your thought process, but it's also a disservice to trade away a winning team to hand spots in the rotation to guys who haven't proven they belong in the rotation, which is what you'd be doing. There is a major difference between resigning aging players to "hang onto the glory" and letting effective pitchers play out their contracts. For everyone who wants to sell high on Lackey, you have to be realistic about this. I suggest clicking here and looking at the midseason top 50 from BA and going down the list of prospects 1 by 1. Check out the player and what team they play for and ask yourself, would this team want a 33 year old John Lackey or this prospect. Once you find someone you think would do that, let us know - I'd be interested to see who you think they could get. It's always easy to say "Sheilds netted Wil Meyers" so you can get someone like that. Circumstances were perfect for that to take place. Tampa was trading Sheilds soon and KC felt they had plenty of offense and needed some veteran starters and were on the verge of contending. find the player, find the situation - don't just say "trade him for something like Wil Meyers because he's of similar value to Shields (whole other debate in and of itself)"
|
|
|