I guess that you must involve NYY and Dodgers if you want your client to get top dollar and more. Maybe tomorrow he signs for LAD and I look like a fool, but I actually take this Dodgers' rumor as positive.
Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.
- Thread starter Rice4HOF
- Start date
- Status
Hank Scorpio said:
I like this and I'll take it a step further. Boy wonder Freidman has been tinkering around the edges of the Ferrari so far and he sees the main SP on the market potentially looking to join his division at the asking price of the guy who could demand something similar or more when he opts out next year(Grienke).
You would have to think the Dodgers have some deals lined up to trade either Kemp or Ethier to clear some money. At the worst you drive up the bidding and get another team to go just past their WAR evaluated comfort zone of 6 for for 130-140. I'm sure Dodger ownership would be even more excited if it could drop an even greater outstanding charge on the Ownership group that dumped their monies on them.
If the Dodgers truly want him they'll pay him and let Grienke walk and man they would be NL favorites with that rotation. Hope it doesn't happen.
It's always good to have a time traveler on your website.
Stop pretending that the money the Sox gave to Sandoval in any way hinders their attempts to sign Lester.
The Yankees may have their own 600-something DH OPS soon enough in Ellsbury.
flymrfreakjar said:
Varitek, we later learned, authorized his agent to bargain with one and only one team.
This should remind you nothing of the Varitek situation.
JimD said:
The Angels already proved that when they beat the Giants, oh so many years ago.
Maybe the Giants would like to win a championship in less that 7 games. Or they'd like to win a championship even if Bumgarner is showing flu-like symptoms on the day of Game 7.
Maybe they would like to have Too Much Pitching and trade some of it for Wily Mo Peña.
How is that exactly?
The Dodgers have unlimited funds and can spend whatever they want and the Red Sox cannot?
Is that because the Dodgers are stupid and the Red Sox are smart? Where is the line drawn with regard to "smart" and "money"?
If the Dodgers "can" pay Lester, the Red Sox can pay Lester.
If the Dodgers are gonna throw more stupid money around, I can't fathom why they wouldn't go for Max. We've talked about it - statistically Lester is inferior. Lester is worth more to us than anyone else because of his proven ability to pitch HERE. If I'm a fan of the Cubs, Dodgers, or Giants, I want us paying 150-200m for the guy who dominated 3 straight years - not the one who did it in a contract year.
Oh, it's not that Sandoval prevents the Red Sox from paying Lester, it's only an issue if not signing Sandoval allows the Giants the payroll space to sign Lester for something in the vicinity of what the Red Sox would pay.sackamano said:
If Lester goes to LA for 7/$168, then I agree that the Sandoval is completely unrelated.
The Red Sox screwed themselves last offseason with their lowball offer, then traded him for somebody they apparently have no further use for. Great job!
HriniakPosterChild said:
I don't think the bargaining phase has really begun yet.
We know Lester has 6/130 on the table from the Sox, and 6/138 on the table from the Cubs. I know some are fretting that he's considering leaving over a "mere" $8M, but that's not necessarily the case.
Maybe the Dodgers offer 6/144, and he takes that to the Sox, hoping they go to at least 6/138, or even matching the 6/144.
From there, maybe the Sox come close, and he signs with Boston. Or maybe they hold firm at 6/130 and his agents try to get a vesting option or a couple of extra million to claim a moral victory, and he signs with Boston anyway. Or maybe he just leaves town.
Financially, it doesn't make sense to take 6/130 right away, even if you really want to play for that team. Might as well try to get them to top their own offer, even if it's one you'll accept anyway.
What was your proposed offer last off-season? Was it much different from the Sox offer, or were you right there with a 6-120 suggestion? Be honest.
The Sox may have no use for Cespedes, but he's still a player with value, that they can deal, which clearly you cannot comprehend. Or refuse to consider.
You would prefer Cespedes to Hanley Ramirez?
It occurs to me that the Dodgers could be playing exactly the same role in relation to the Giants that we've speculated the Yankees might play in relation to the Sox--i.e., making an offer whose primary purpose is to drive the price up out of the range of a less deep-pocketed divisional rival. In that case, the Dodgers' ideal outcome here would be if SF folds its hand but Boston or Chicago ends up meeting or beating their offer.
jimbobim said:
At this point trading Kemp would be shooting a big hole in the middle of that lineup, one i have a hard time seeing them make up. I also would not rationally expect anybody to touch that Ethier contract without LA eating a large majority of it, which even then isn't going generate or free up anything of real note.
If LA makes the push on Lester i'm in agreement though that it looks like a pure GFIN move, with a projected plan on letting Greinke walk next winter. In those terms and given the surrounding improvement options/possibilities on the table for LA atm...i certainly see the appeal (for Lester too) if they are willing to spend for it. NL favorites for sure.
HriniakPosterChild said:
Of course you're wrong--I can't speak to specifically what flymr meant, but it's as easy as starting to see Lester as someone acting a bit like someone who ultimately wants to land in one place and is going about that in a different way. Lester has much more leverage than Varitek had. We don't know, as we didn't know as the Varitek situation unfolded--and please, quibble with the interpretation--but please with what I should and shouldn't be reminded of. Like it needs to be this identical fingerprint match.
The Dodgers can definitely afford it, but I'm struggling to understand why they'd be the ones to blow anyone out of the water with their current rotation. Who knows, but this one, especially being tidily identified as "the mystery team!", feels like a late game push for some extra urgency going into the "last/ best" stage.
https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/540333081505189891Rice4HOF said:
link to tweet
@alexspeier: Multiple sources tell .@bradfo and me that Dodgers are showing serious interest as late entrant in Jon Lester derby http://t.co/iuKdnoHWdr
Most definitely.
The end game is about to begin and I'm to the point where the final numbers appear to beyond where I'd wish to go in order to keep Jon in the laundry. This isn't Roger or Pedro talent that is in play and meeting the number shouldn't be based on the fact that the rotation is currently a 3 and 4 5's. Some of the current 5's do have some potential to raise their game to higher levels. So, we've got that going for us!
Jon is the same guy that we've watched pitch through his 20's... periods of WOW, but unable to maintain it, even when healthy. The same easy going mechanics used as a defense to go all-in for the long term (he won't break down) are the same mechanics that shit the bed (Dice K like pitch counts) for periods during his expected peak years. While the next 2-3 seasons appear optimistic in terms of value, the following 3-4 are likely an abyss.
This isn't just a 2015 decision and given the current state of the organization, there is no need to go overboard in this bidding. There are other options, plans b-c-d.... and maybe there is an ace about to blossom from the farm, I'd rather use the 25-30 million per-year deal to lock that 20-something guy up long term and that time will arise during the back end of any overpay for Lester.
Is Lester the Sox ace/anchor for the next 6-years? If yes, sign him. The organization, with much smarter people than us, had a different view of Lester's value coming out of a championship season with a career long sample of data.
I congratulate Jon on his pending payday and wish him all the best in the NL. I expect Theo to win the battle... and lose the war.
Jon is the same guy that we've watched pitch through his 20's... periods of WOW, but unable to maintain it, even when healthy. The same easy going mechanics used as a defense to go all-in for the long term (he won't break down) are the same mechanics that shit the bed (Dice K like pitch counts) for periods during his expected peak years. While the next 2-3 seasons appear optimistic in terms of value, the following 3-4 are likely an abyss.
This isn't just a 2015 decision and given the current state of the organization, there is no need to go overboard in this bidding. There are other options, plans b-c-d.... and maybe there is an ace about to blossom from the farm, I'd rather use the 25-30 million per-year deal to lock that 20-something guy up long term and that time will arise during the back end of any overpay for Lester.
Is Lester the Sox ace/anchor for the next 6-years? If yes, sign him. The organization, with much smarter people than us, had a different view of Lester's value coming out of a championship season with a career long sample of data.
I congratulate Jon on his pending payday and wish him all the best in the NL. I expect Theo to win the battle... and lose the war.
CaskNFappin said:
I tend to agree, but maybe it simply breaks down to the belief that Max projects to be this winter's Prince Fielder. Insisting on the bigger/longer contract right out the gate, with a full expectation to sit around until somebody eventually caves and coughs it up.
My money would be on Max ending up with the bigger contract. If Lester can be secured sooner and for a year less on the back end...that's a notable change to the either/or dynamic.
Rudy Pemberton said:
This is what I think.
It may take a year or two, but the team that ends up with Lester will eventually regret it. I'm hoping the Yankees sign Lester, maybe even kick in an extra year, but it appears the Yankees are actually showing restraint (smart) and it may the Dodgers who overpay for Lester.
I've been thinking about the Red Sox starting staff without Lester (bad investment) or Hamels (costs too much on the trade market). Another strategy: pursue Samardzija in a trade while signing a quality starter via free agency (Shields, McCarthy, Liriano, Santana), show some faith in the De La Rosa, Wright, and Webster group, while waiting for the next wave of promotions: Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, and Barnes.
That approach is more interesting to me than overspending on Lester, a guy who had a career year (basically) and is going to milk it for all it's worth even though the contract will probably be counterproductive for the organization that signs him.
Generally when news breaks about a mystery team making a late push regarding a free agent it's never a good thing. I think it's over and Lester will now go to the Dodgers for an insane contract because they can give it to him no issue. Might actually be the best thing for his career pitching in a pitchers haven with no DH. I'd love for him to come back but I'm getting nervous this contract is going to be in the 170 range.
If the bidding enters the realm of 6/150, I agree that Lester is gone. I have to believe (or maybe I'd like to believe) that if the offers are within a reasonable range, that Lester would take less to come back to Boston. If the Cubs are 6/138 and Boston is 6/125, I think he'd come back. If the Dodgers are offering 7/160, that's a different animal. If LA is at 6/150...I still think he'd come back. I'll admit that it is wish casting to have him do something like this, but until the ink is dry, there is a chance.
Tyrone Biggums said:
Lester would be a tremendous pitcher for the Dodgers. Getting every 9th batter off (pitcher vs. DH), pitching in many cavernous stadiums…I think he'd flourish. But of course he'd always be second banana on that team behind Kershaw. Maybe he'd be fine with that. Sometimes pitchers of his caliber have egos, however. Perhaps he'd want to be the #1 pitcher on his team. Which he would be in Boston or Chicago. Not so in LA. Who knows.
Was talking with one of my close friends in Detroit yesterday. Apparently a bunch of talk in Detroit that the Tigers are the mystery team.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I agree with this.
I would imagine the LAD are preparing to clear some salary via Kemp/Ethier/Crawford trade(s) anyways, as well as letting Greinke walk. They strike me more as Scherzer-chasers than swooping in at the last second for Lester. From all the qualitative discussion about Lester and fit, making a last second decision on an offer far away from home with a clubhouse of kooks doesn't strike me as "comforting" if he wants to make a decision prior to the Winter Meetings (familiarity with Byrnes, Finley, Kapler be darned).
If I'm a Dodger fan, I'm more interested in the Boras-Friedman drama over Scherzer. Sure, Lester would be a nice get and spare some angst, but unless the Dodgers have been engaged for a while, I don't see the last-minute swoop as very successful unless Lester has been disingenuous all along (which I doubt).
Hoplite said:
Yes, because the best reason to spend another $160M+ on a pitcher is their ace's performance in his last 3 post-season games (not coincidentally all against the same team). He was stellar in his first three starts of the 2013 post-season.
Not saying the Dodgers can't be or won't be a player for Lester, but it will have absolutely zero to do with how Kershaw, the undisputed best pitcher in the game, performed in three starts.
If Lester goes for a bloated amount, imagine what Scherzer will go for. I can't imagine anyone but the Yankees going that high for him.
I'm glad the Sox have chips for trade in case they'd be screwed having to pay so much for the 2nd tier guys.
I'm glad the Sox have chips for trade in case they'd be screwed having to pay so much for the 2nd tier guys.
Dick Pole Upside said:
This may be too far out-of-the-box for Friedman (or anyone else), but if LA thinks Grienke is gone after this year (which is quite possible), they may look at the offers being made for Shark, Latos, Cueto, etc., and other one-year-until-FA pitchers and figure they could dump some high-priced ballast most easily by pairing it with Grienke in a deal. So sign Lester, then deal Grienke along with some combination of Brandon League, Brian Wilson, Crawford and Ethier. That would solve a few different problems and make Lester's deal cap-neutral (at worst). Again, this might be too crazy, but the Dodgers pursuing Lester in the first place seems hard to explain given their current needs.
Edit: So much for this idea...
https://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/540571104730185728
The better option for the Sox, if they don't get Lester, is to build a solid rotation of #2s and #3s, have a top 3 offense and a stud bullpen.
Sign McCarthy.
Trade Cespedes+ for Porcello.
Sign Shields. Short years, big AAV. 3/66
Enter the year with a Shields/McCarthy/Porcello/Buchholz/Kelly rotation. Let the young guns beef up the bullpen, or sit in AAA as insurance, ready in case one of these guys goes down with injury or is ineffective. But that rotation should give you solid innings most times out. Shields, during the regular season, is terrific, and if Clay is odd-year-awesome Clay, then this rotation becomes superb. If not, oh well, you have insurance.
That rotation isn't terribly expensive, and it doesn't lock you in forever. In 2016 some big pitching guns are available in free agency. And you can always let Clay/Porcello go in 2015 (if you want) to pursue guys like Cueto or whomever.
I think that rotation could be very solid, and very attainable, and it would give the Sox, with their improved offense, a legit shot at winning most every time out. Over the long haul, that's a very nice team.
Sign McCarthy.
Trade Cespedes+ for Porcello.
Sign Shields. Short years, big AAV. 3/66
Enter the year with a Shields/McCarthy/Porcello/Buchholz/Kelly rotation. Let the young guns beef up the bullpen, or sit in AAA as insurance, ready in case one of these guys goes down with injury or is ineffective. But that rotation should give you solid innings most times out. Shields, during the regular season, is terrific, and if Clay is odd-year-awesome Clay, then this rotation becomes superb. If not, oh well, you have insurance.
That rotation isn't terribly expensive, and it doesn't lock you in forever. In 2016 some big pitching guns are available in free agency. And you can always let Clay/Porcello go in 2015 (if you want) to pursue guys like Cueto or whomever.
I think that rotation could be very solid, and very attainable, and it would give the Sox, with their improved offense, a legit shot at winning most every time out. Over the long haul, that's a very nice team.
They have too many pitchers for AAA even assuming that RDLR, Webster, and Workman are all at the ML level, they can't just send the excess starters to AAA or the bullpen.ivanvamp said:
Second: McCarthy was a mediocre, consistently unhealthy pitcher through the age of 26. He then had a real nice 170 innings at 27 in Oakland, proceeded to throw 111 and 135 innings respectively the next two seasons with FIPs of 3.76 and 3.75. The fact that he assembled a total of 200 IP last season is, at this point, the erratic, not the trend.
Third: his FIP only dropped by 0.60 in moving from Arizona to New York, so lets not fall in love with the guy because his ERA went from a 5.01 to a 2.89. He was better, but not nearly the overnight transformation some suggest.
I get the argument that McCarthy could be a huge steal for someone this off-season. He could also be a complete and total waste of money for someone if he continues his injury trends. When you then accept the reality that outside of an awesome 2011 and 90 good innings for the Yankees last year he's been pretty mediocre even when healthy I see no reason to go with McCarthy over one of the prospects. McCarthy might end up giving you a low 3's FIP and be a real value at 3/$36M, sure, but De La Rosa or Webster might give you a low 3's FIP for $300K and no future commitment. FA steals are still far worse value for your money than productive farmhands.
The Red Sox have a wealth of ML ready young pitching and more than enough money to make a splash next off-season in a likely equal or better FA class of pitchers. If they miss out on all the FAs they want why wouldn't they just use the opportunity to battle test the entire pitching crop coming up for a year before going hard after one or two FAs next winter?CaskNFappin said:
Plympton91 said:
If Lester was asking for 6/140 last off-season then it would have been unwise for the Sox to sign him at that. Nobody knows what he was asking - all speculation. We might feel a little better about it now since he had a great season, but that's alot of change for a guy who was merely good the prior 2-3 seasons before. (Sandwiched between a clunker 2012).
Getting Cespedes was the right choice at the time. There was no way to predict them winning the Castillo bid and Mookie's competence (in light of JBJ, Xander's struggles). Yes, he may be redundant now but the Sox needed to at least protect themselves with a competent OF and bat going forward at that point.
My plan B exactly. Add signing Miller, use RDLR and/or Webster to get one more ace reliever like Miller and build the staff from the 9th inning backwards.ivanvamp said:
foulkehampshire said:
Getting Cespedes was the right choice at the time, and is still a fine choice now, even with Mookie and Castillo. Cespedes was and still is a valuable commodity.
Unless we find out there was some other huge offer on the table for a couple months of Jon Lester, the trade still seems to be a reasonable one, even if Cespedes doesn't play for the 2015 Red Sox.
There's risk in that.Drek717 said:
That staff could be terrible. By the time we are sure of that, we will have destroyed trade value for many of our young starters AND likely dug ourselves into another last place hole in a much improved AL East.
There's also the risk that some of the 2015 FA SPs will be extended or simply don't wish to play here (David Price?).
I think GMs around baseball aren't as eager as we'd like to give us impact pitching in exchange for 2 or 3 of our questionable young guys. We keep coming up with these 4 quarters for a dollar scenarios, and it doesn't look like that's a reality in this market.
Rudy Pemberton said:
That would easily be Latos' worst FIP since he was first called up in 2009. It would also be McCarthy's best FIP of his career other than 2011, and he has him doing it in only 150 innings.
That doesn't really pass the smell test in my opinion.
Rudy Pemberton said:
I hear you and I saw where you were going. I'm just pointing out that a projection system that tells us that Latos and Workman are basically equal, while McCarthy and Lester are basically equal, seems to have some issues.
Lester to the Tigers? They should be throwing some money and accumulating some buy-low arms for their hideous bullpen, which has killed them in the playoffs for years.
I love Lester and like everyone wanted to sign him, but predictably the money is getting too crazy. Anyone remember CC Sabathia and his suddenly hideous contract? We're definitely in a box with needing to trade but not wanting to touch the big 3 prospects to do it. I would keep them all as well, because having a young, star catcher and shortstop is just too tantalizing. As for Betts, OF is not as valuable but he just looks too good and too fun to part with.
James Shields, come on down! ugh.
I love Lester and like everyone wanted to sign him, but predictably the money is getting too crazy. Anyone remember CC Sabathia and his suddenly hideous contract? We're definitely in a box with needing to trade but not wanting to touch the big 3 prospects to do it. I would keep them all as well, because having a young, star catcher and shortstop is just too tantalizing. As for Betts, OF is not as valuable but he just looks too good and too fun to part with.
James Shields, come on down! ugh.
Rudy Pemberton said:
The Union would not be putting pressure on Lester to drag this out past Winter Meetings. The entire pitching FA market is on hold as he negotiates. If this is not settled by the end of this week, teams will move on and start trading for the help they want at Winter Meetings. That would trickle down and hurt the rest of the market. Also Winter Meetings is a time you can really negotiate since all the teams are in one place.
Dragging this out leaves the danger that bidders will walk away but also could leave millions on the table for other free agents.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I agree. I think the Red Sox are basically wise to avoid long contracts for players over 30. But then, how do you build a contending team in the era in which good players are locked up early in their careers? Yes, players in their 30's are overpaid and players in their 20's are underpaid, but how do you get those underpaid 20-something players? You've got to hope that the draft works works out, but as we saw last year, the kids don't always develop the way you hope. So what does a big market team with money to spend do?
I feel that the money has to be somehow be used for younger players. Stanton would have been a perfect case. Otherwise, maybe it makes more sense to not spend the money and wait until the next fire sale.
We're not getting Price for Cespedes and bullpen/back of the rotation arms. And Detroit's not signing Lester just to turn around and unload Price anyway.
If anything, I'd think Detroit would be a landing spot for Greinke if the Dodgers are looking to deal him. Gives them a strong 1/2 in Price/Greinke without committing to anyone past their likely window of opportunity.
Other than the huge contract they gave to Verlander. That's a whole lot of money tied up in starting pitching this year.OnWisc said:
That's the point, though, isn't it? Their window is small so it makes sense to load up with expensive but short contacts and to avoid ending up like the Yankees with an endless stream of overpaid, underperforming vets who you can't offload.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
They're already there though, aren't they? They have Verlander and Miggy. They got lucky with Fielder but VMart's deal is pretty long and very pricey. I'm not surprised they're willing to go big money/long term with a pitcher because that's been their MO the last few offseasons.Snodgrass'Muff said:
I meant the back of Detroit's 2015 rotation, not the 2014 Red Sox's. With Lester at the front of the rotation and Verlander and Sanchez as the 2/3 guys then Henry Owens, as much as we all love him, is a back of the rotation arm. And Owens, Allen Webster, and Brian Johnson are the guys I had in mind when I made the remark. If they sign either Lester or Scherzer, then the Verlander & Cabrera deals mean that the Tigers won't have the money to pay Price's rate in 2016 and beyond. They might actually be more inclined to hold on to Porcello if he signs a long term team friendly deal (which Price likely won't). In any event, replacing $30-$40 million in payroll for Price & Porcello in 2016 with Owens and Johnson, while getting a cost controlled arm or two for the bullpen might help keep them in their present position as Verlander continues his decline.OnWisc said:
If the bidding on Lester goes north of $25 million, I don't think anyone here will be thrilled with the deal. If it's the Tigers that throw that sort of deal at him then it at least means that the Tigers will surplus pitching to trade for Cespedes and arms to fill out their rotation.curly2 said:
- Status