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 jimed14 on Dec 17, 2013 15:20:49 GMT -5
Cain and Hamels were 27 when they signed. That's not even a starting point in comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 17, 2013 15:23:47 GMT -5
And if you think the inflation this year is significant, next year - if Kershaw is locked up - you will have Scherzer and Lester then a complete cliff when it comes to starters. They will be able to get money that makes Greinke - who was 28 in his walk year - look like a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2013 15:31:59 GMT -5
And if you think the inflation this year is significant, next year - if Kershaw is locked up - you will have Scherzer and Lester then a complete cliff when it comes to starters. They will be able to get money that makes Greinke - who was 28 in his walk year - look like a bargain. That's just not true. Other notable free agent starters next year include James Shields, Justin Masterson, and Homer Bailey. It's a far better SP class than this year, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 17, 2013 15:32:12 GMT -5
Greinke was 29; Hamels was actually 28; Lester will be 31 years old during the first year of his next contract and will be 36 at the end of a six year deal. If the Red Sox play the age card on him, Lester will leave. It's not a compelling argument and will not be mentioned seriously by any team when Lester hits free agency. Age did not get Cain and Hamels their contracts, performance did. If he was 38 or 39 at the end of the deal, maybe. 36 is good time for a team to end a contract on a free agent pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2013 15:38:37 GMT -5
Greinke was 29; Hamels was actually 28; Lester will be 31 years old during the first year of his next contract and will be 36 at the end of a six year deal. If the Red Sox play the age card on him, Lester will leave. It's not a compelling argument and will not be mentioned seriously by any team when Lester hits free agency. Age did not get Cain and Hamels their contracts, performance did. If he was 38 or 39 at the end of the deal, maybe. 36 is good time for a team to end a contract on a free agent pitcher. 3 years is a huge difference. Even 2 years is. There's no friggin way Lester is getting 7 years even with the dumbest team bidding on him.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 17, 2013 15:39:30 GMT -5
And if you think the inflation this year is significant, next year - if Kershaw is locked up - you will have Scherzer and Lester then a complete cliff when it comes to starters. They will be able to get money that makes Greinke - who was 28 in his walk year - look like a bargain. That's just not true. Other notable free agent starters next year include James Shields, Justin Masterson, and Homer Bailey. It's a far better SP class than this year, for instance. Bailey is not a free agent until 2015. Masterson doesn't have near the track record of Lester, although two of his last three years have been comparable. He's has some lousy years. Shields will be 33 at the beginning of his next contract, which makes him dangerous in year 6 of a contract (age 38). In addition, he has no background in a big market. Assuming as we should that Scherzer and Kershaw will sign, Lester will be the clear star of free agency next year and will get the largest contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 17, 2013 15:41:33 GMT -5
Unless Bailey has an option that I'm unaware of, he is a free agent next season.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2013 15:42:27 GMT -5
That's just not true. Other notable free agent starters next year include James Shields, Justin Masterson, and Homer Bailey. It's a far better SP class than this year, for instance. Bailey is not a free agent until 2015. Masterson doesn't have near the track record of Lester, although two of his last three years have been comparable. He's has some lousy years. Shields will be 33 at the beginning of his next contract, which makes him dangerous in year 6 of a contract (age 38). In addition, he has no background in a big market. Assuming as we should that Scherzer and Kershaw will sign, Lester will be the clear star of free agency next year and will get the largest contract. If Bailey is a free agent in 2015, he'll be a free agent a year from now, i.e. next year. And why are we assuming that Kershaw and Scherzer re-sign and Lester doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2013 15:52:40 GMT -5
That's just not true. Other notable free agent starters next year include James Shields, Justin Masterson, and Homer Bailey. It's a far better SP class than this year, for instance. Bailey is not a free agent until 2015. Right, and we're talking about the players who will be free agents after 2014 and before 2015. Cot's, MLBTR, and multiple other media sources indicate Bailey is a free agent after the 2014 season. I didn't say Masterson or Shields were more attractive free agents than Lester. But to characterize the pitching market as "a complete cliff" after Scherzer and Lester is totally wrong. Shields and Masterson have shown comparable performance in the past, and the fact that one is old and the other inconsistent just means they're going to come cheaper. I'm very skeptical of the argument that Lester's going to get paid next year because the pitching market is thin. For one thing, it isn't thin or even top heavy-- I'd rather have any of Kershaw, Scherzer, Lester, Bailey, Shields, or Masterson than the guys who top this year's market (Santana, Garza, Jimenez, etc), and there are lots of other interesting names (Jorge De La Rosa, Josh Johnson, Brandon McCarthy, Jake Peavy, etc). For another, I remain unconvinced that a shallow market necessarily means the top-end guys are going to get paid more than they would have otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 17, 2013 15:55:19 GMT -5
My wrong on Bailey, who only has two good years under his belt in a small market. Good pitcher but certainly a step behind Lester. Kershaw's agents must realize Dodgers have open checkbook and are happy to overpay. 8 to 10 years at $240 -$280 million is forseeable for him. Detroit has been giving out big $$$ deals and has cleared space (Fielder) to get something done. Why not sign, unless Detroit suddenly goes on a diet.
I think Lester will resign with the Sox. Everything is set up nicely for to Sox to pay him. I thought the discussion has been about what it will cost.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 17, 2013 15:58:43 GMT -5
For another, I remain unconvinced that a shallow market necessarily means the top-end guys are going to get paid more than they would have otherwise. I think this is an important point. I'm not sure it's been studied in baseball, but I distinctly remember reading that in basketball, second-tier free agents tend to do better in stronger free agent classes. What happens is that teams clear cap space in anticipation, and the franchises that lose out on the elite free agents and have tons of money to spend go crazy. I will try to find the source. The finances of basketball are much different than baseball, of course.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 17, 2013 16:05:05 GMT -5
For another, I remain unconvinced that a shallow market necessarily means the top-end guys are going to get paid more than they would have otherwise. I think this is an important point. I'm not sure it's been studied in baseball, but I distinctly remember reading that in basketball, second-tier free agents tend to do better in stronger free agent classes. What happens is that teams clear cap space in anticipation, and the franchises that lose out on the elite free agents and have tons of money to spend go crazy. I will try to find the source. The finances of basketball are much different than baseball, of course. The top free agents will not be effected by the second tier players. The cost of a mercedes is no way is effected by the cost of a Volkswagon. However, the second tier players could benefit if there are a limited number of them and a bunch of hungry teams. (Supply and Demand). The teams needing pitching could panic and over pay. In this scenario, the teams that get the top free agents likely will get the best value and the second tier players will get overpaid.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 17, 2013 16:09:56 GMT -5
Let's just play it out, O.K. Lester becomes a free agent. The Yankees will undoubtedly need pitching, perhaps very badly. They can take the Sox number one and really change the dynamics of the division. Kershaw and Scherzer's massive contracts will be done and used in some capacity along with the Greinke, Cain and Hamels deals to make 7/175 seem reasonable and 6/150 look like a bargain. This is a probability, not a possibility.
It would behoove the Sox to get something done asap if it wants Lester long term. The price will only go up - unless there's an injury.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2013 16:27:55 GMT -5
Let's just play it out, O.K. Lester becomes a free agent. The Yankees will undoubtedly need pitching, perhaps very badly. They can take the Sox number one and really change the dynamics of the division. Kershaw and Scherzer's massive contracts will be done and used in some capacity along with the Greinke, Cain and Hamels deals to make 7/175 seem reasonable and 6/150 look like a bargain. This is a probability, not a possibility. It would behoove the Sox to get something done asap if it wants Lester long term. The price will only go up - unless there's an injury. Or we could wait and see how our SP prospects in AAA do this year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 17, 2013 16:38:29 GMT -5
And if you think the inflation this year is significant, next year - if Kershaw is locked up - you will have Scherzer and Lester then a complete cliff when it comes to starters. They will be able to get money that makes Greinke - who was 28 in his walk year - look like a bargain. That's just not true. Other notable free agent starters next year include James Shields, Justin Masterson, and Homer Bailey. It's a far better SP class than this year, for instance. Shields will be 33 when he starts his next contract so I assumed that hampered his market and years. I think Masterson and Bailey will be perceived as a step downs from Lester but I could be wrong. And then there's this to add to the inflation: www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/12/17/major-league-baseball-sees-record-revenues-exceed-8-billion-for-2013/
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2013 16:59:07 GMT -5
Doesn't change my point-- next year's starting pitching class is deep, which can only hurt Lester's market. By the way, the only scenario the Red Sox sign Lester to an extension this offseason is if he takes a below-market deal, a fact that Lester has acknowledged and appears to be open to. If he wants a Greinke deal, he won't get it from the Red Sox this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2013 17:04:38 GMT -5
Ya know, it's about time baseball does something right with all of the ridiculous money and up minimum salaries by a lot. Or maybe minor league salaries too. I'm sick of seeing contracts for star players go up and up and up. It is a curse to have a big payroll now, because you're expected to waste money on declining players instead of letting prospects develop so you can get their best years out of them for almost no money.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 17, 2013 17:07:48 GMT -5
Greinke was 29; Hamels was actually 28; Lester will be 31 years old during the first year of his next contract and will be 36 at the end of a six year deal. If the Red Sox play the age card on him, Lester will leave. It's not a compelling argument and will not be mentioned seriously by any team when Lester hits free agency. Age did not get Cain and Hamels their contracts, performance did. If he was 38 or 39 at the end of the deal, maybe. 36 is good time for a team to end a contract on a free agent pitcher. I disagree with the first part, and as for the second, here are some numbers for the three full seasons prior to Hamels' and Cain's contracts, along with Lester's last three: Matt Cain, 2010-2012: 664.1 IP, 124 ERA+ Cole Hamels, 2009-2011: 618.1 IP, 120 ERA+ Jon Lester, 2011-2013: 610.1 IP, 104 ERA+
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 17, 2013 17:21:29 GMT -5
Doesn't change my point-- next year's starting pitching class is deep, which can only hurt Lester's market. By the way, the only scenario the Red Sox sign Lester to an extension this offseason is if he takes a below-market deal, a fact that Lester has acknowledged and appears to be open to. If he wants a Greinke deal, he won't get it from the Red Sox this offseason. btw, the audio clip of that interview becomes particularly fascinating when Lester discusses what happens when he gets in a rut. He seems to be pretty clear that, for the most part, it's usually not injury or mechanics as much as it's him getting pissed off that a certain pitch didn't work against a specific batter or count and that he starts to over think everything and the several game downward spiral begins. He also discussed how Farrell and Nieves really helped him that in the 2nd half of this year. Here's hoping the lesson was learned. audio.weei.com/a/84748050/jon-lester-on-the-hot-stove-show.htmHe sounds really relaxed in that interview.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 17:28:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure when Lester turned into a top pitcher in the game... He's not even as good as the second tier guys like Greinke and Hamels. There is a reason people were actually questioning if he'd be worth the option. Obviously, he is, that's not the point. His performance dictated that the question at least be asked. I'm only for trying to extend him at around 5/100. We know what he is. Inconsistent workhorse who pitched very well down the stretch and through the post season last year. Overall, he's given a title as a big time post season performer, but I looked back and the numbers don't support that.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 17, 2013 18:45:04 GMT -5
His postseason numbers aren't bad at all, with a WHIP around 1 and a 8K/2.5BB per nine. That's over 76 innings. He was asked to do a bit this time around and for the most part he responded, with an especially outstanding game against St. Louis, zoned-in and lights out. I don't think he's at the very top of the starter list given the inconsistency. But as a relatively dependable #2 guy, he would get at least $20 million/year on the open market in my opinion. I don't think anyone said he's a "top pitcher in the game". I just think, as do others, that there aren't too many fiscal restraints on the market at this point.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 19:10:39 GMT -5
Post season numbers overall are good. He just hasn't dominated every time out, like it seems his legend states. I agree on him at around 20m. 6/150 is crazy and if someone is willing to do it, good for Lester. Hopefully, it's not in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 17, 2013 21:12:43 GMT -5
Ya know, it's about time baseball does something right with all of the ridiculous money and up minimum salaries by a lot. Or maybe minor league salaries too. I'm sick of seeing contracts for star players go up and up and up. It is a curse to have a big payroll now, because you're expected to waste money on declining players instead of letting prospects develop so you can get their best years out of them for almost no money. I agree. Minor league players are expected to get by on less than what your standard walmart door greeter gets each month. "Oh and its a shame that prospect x comes into camp out of shape" because, ya know, ramen and no gym membership make for a great workout partnership. Also salary floors seems like a no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 21:21:11 GMT -5
A lot of things should happen that don't because of unions and big business. Here you're dealing with both so good luck with that...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 17, 2013 21:57:03 GMT -5
A lot of things should happen that don't because of unions and big business. Here you're dealing with both so good luck with that... You do realize that only reason minor leaguers don't make any money is because they're NOT union members, right?
|
|
|