Agree with your first point. But being that the Sox final offer was essentially double the original one speaks of low balling. There is a middle ground there. A $65 million one.rodderick said:
Lester to Cubs: Rent Garments Thread
- Thread starter ArgentinaSOXfan
- Start date
Gordon Edes @GordonEdes 40s40 seconds ago
@jaysonst also reports Cubs gave Lester full no-trade protection
@jaysonst also reports Cubs gave Lester full no-trade protection
maxotaur said:
I don't disagree with that. The poster I quoted said:
This is what I was responding to.
Plympton91 said:
Yes, player values do change over the course of a season. How much would teams have bid for Masterson or Craig as free agents last offseason? How about this offseason? If Lester had duplicated his first half of 2013, or his second half of 2012, or his first half of 2012, you'd feel much differently (well, OK, that's not fair. Rational people would feel much, much differently.) And, note that this was part of the evaluation -- 4/70 would have been a massive overpay for the Lester of 2012, right? So there was certainly some amount of belief that the second half of 2013 might be real, just not a willingness to give Lester a long-term major deal on the assumption that the second half of 2013 was entirely indicative of what he would be going forward.
Let's think about this one further a bit. Let's decide that if Lester's last half of 2013 is real, he's worth 6/135 to the Sox, their top offer. If Lester's first half of 2013 is real, or his 2012, he's worth...about 1 WAR/year and declining from there, so at $7M/WAR, let's say that he's worth at most about 6/30, and by the end of that you might not want him holding a roster spot. We can debate exactly how you should deal with risk, but let's just take expectation value here. We think 6/120 might have been what was necessary to get it done. So, if we decide that it's entirely boom or bust, you'd have to be 86% certain that his last half of 2013 is the part that's real in order to offer him 6/120. If I offered you a bet on Lester's 2014, at odds 5:1 in my favor, would you have bet that he would do at least as well as the last half of 2013? I can't believe that you'd have made that bet.
If we take the Cubs offer as what the Sox "should" have offered here, and nobody on this board seems to, then you'd still have needed to be 72% certain in order to make an offer of 6/120, and again, that's a sucker bet. However, if you feel otherwise, I'll offer you this: in 2014, Lester had a combined 4.8 WAR. If Lester tops 4.8 WAR in 2015, I'll give $28 to the Jimmy Fund. Otherwise you give $72 to the Jimmy Fund. I'm guessing you won't want to take that bet, and I certainly think the odds are stacked in my favor. But, I'm happy to make that bet if you'd like.
Similarly, the question about Cespedes, while still up in the air, isn't whether trading for Cespedes stopped us from getting Lester back. We didn't want him back at this price, and the Cubs would have made their offer anyway. The question is whether Cespedes is more valuable than a combination of having Lester for an extra couple of months last season instead of Cespedes (probably a negative, in that this way we found out more about our younger pitchers and got a better draft pick) and the compensation pick we would have received. We'll see what the final return ends up being, but I believe that one year of Cespedes is likely a better return than the average compensation pick (which we'd have lost when we signed Ramirez/Sandoval, so I guess it really would have given us an extra third round pick, but with a different offseason approach, it would still be a compensation pick). And, I believe that if we trade Cespedes, we'll end up trading him for something that's better than the average compensation pick.
So I really don't see the mistake here.
The Cardinals won the 2011 World Series and then LOST a big bidding war for Albert Pujols -- using his money to sign more players who outperformed Pujols. Two years later they are back in the World Series with only five players (and zero pitchers) that were in the World Series two years earlier. They did not have a top 2-3 player anymore. Sorry, I am going to have to conclude that they know what they are doing.
I am not suggesting the Cardinals are perfect or don't make mistakes. The counter-argument to my point is that the Cardinals actually wanted to sign Pujols. They offered him a lot of money, and it is in a sense luck that he did not take it. The skill, I believe, is that the Cardinals were smart enough to not just keep bidding to please the fan base. They wanted their player, but they still set a (HIGH) price. This is what the Red Sox did with Lester. They wanted their guy, offered to make him the highest paid player in team history, but they did not just keep going. Lester keeps saying that the Red Sox treated him magnificently, but Shaughnessy and much of this board will NEVER believe him.
My overaching point is that teams make hundreds or thousands of value judgments every year. The Red Sox are going to talk to 20 free agents this off-season, and ask about 100 trade acquisitions. They are going to make a deal or two they regret, probably. So is every team, except the ones who don't trade. If you are going to say that a decision was bad, fine. But please, for the love of God, do not try to draw large conclusions about the team's acumen or pettiness or vindictiveness or whatever without considering how well they have done on balance for the past 13 years under new management. They have made lots of mistakes and will make many more. But they spent a boatload of money, have mostly NOT regretted the FAs they don't land, and have won three titles. Let's at least start with that.
I am not suggesting the Cardinals are perfect or don't make mistakes. The counter-argument to my point is that the Cardinals actually wanted to sign Pujols. They offered him a lot of money, and it is in a sense luck that he did not take it. The skill, I believe, is that the Cardinals were smart enough to not just keep bidding to please the fan base. They wanted their player, but they still set a (HIGH) price. This is what the Red Sox did with Lester. They wanted their guy, offered to make him the highest paid player in team history, but they did not just keep going. Lester keeps saying that the Red Sox treated him magnificently, but Shaughnessy and much of this board will NEVER believe him.
My overaching point is that teams make hundreds or thousands of value judgments every year. The Red Sox are going to talk to 20 free agents this off-season, and ask about 100 trade acquisitions. They are going to make a deal or two they regret, probably. So is every team, except the ones who don't trade. If you are going to say that a decision was bad, fine. But please, for the love of God, do not try to draw large conclusions about the team's acumen or pettiness or vindictiveness or whatever without considering how well they have done on balance for the past 13 years under new management. They have made lots of mistakes and will make many more. But they spent a boatload of money, have mostly NOT regretted the FAs they don't land, and have won three titles. Let's at least start with that.
Two separate questions at issue here:
1. from today's vantage point did Sox make an error in not getting to 5/110, let's say, this Spring?
2. from Spring 2014 vantage point did they make this error?
Seems undeniable to me, based on the ultimate 6/135 offer made, that the answer to question 1 is yes. Whether the answer remains yes over the next 6 years remains to be seen.
The answer to question 2 is certainly debatable and in the end unanswerable but fair or not will be largely irrelevant to the assessment of this deal in the end.
Ie though you can construct a rationale for Bagwell for Anderson at the time of the deal that doesn't detract from the conclusion it was a wretched trade. If Larry Anderson led us to the promised land, not so.
1. from today's vantage point did Sox make an error in not getting to 5/110, let's say, this Spring?
2. from Spring 2014 vantage point did they make this error?
Seems undeniable to me, based on the ultimate 6/135 offer made, that the answer to question 1 is yes. Whether the answer remains yes over the next 6 years remains to be seen.
The answer to question 2 is certainly debatable and in the end unanswerable but fair or not will be largely irrelevant to the assessment of this deal in the end.
Ie though you can construct a rationale for Bagwell for Anderson at the time of the deal that doesn't detract from the conclusion it was a wretched trade. If Larry Anderson led us to the promised land, not so.
smastroyin said:
I'd expect Theo to try to score one of the big FA arms next year, too.
But the NL Central should be absolutely wide open next year, with no one team a true "lock" for the playoffs. Should the Cubs take another step forward with their hitting, and other teams take a couple bad bounces, there's no reason to delay a turnaround.
That said, I'll miss Lester and wish the Sox plunked down a better opening last offseason. Good luck, Jon!
Better yet, the Cardinals chose to lose a bidding war for Pujols, and parted in a classy way. (I dearly hope this parting remains classy).
St. Louis probably has been the most consistent, and among the most successful, franchises in the last 50 years. I don't believe that is accidental.
St. Louis probably has been the most consistent, and among the most successful, franchises in the last 50 years. I don't believe that is accidental.
Forgive me since I cant copy and paste due to a spillage on my laptop, but over on rootworld.com per Jason Stark, that 30 million signing bonus seems to be on top of the 155 mill contract
I posted something in P&G this morning related to the failed negotiations point but cannot cut and paste for some reason while on my work computer.
Here's what I was driving at:
The anger underlying the failed negotiations point is premised on:
1. Sox lowball $70 mm offer in March or April, 2014. (That number is probably right and has not been disputed by the Red Sox, as far as I know).
2. The notion that Lester was so insulted that he did not negotiate further or that it poisoned the negotiations irrevocably.
3. Alternatively, if they did negotiate and the negotiations were not poisoned, the fact remains that the negotiations did not lead to a contract, and this is the fault of the Red Sox.
4. Lester would have taken 5/$110 mm if the Sox only had offered it. That deal was theirs to ink if they only were willing to make an offer at that level.
However:
A. Lester is represented by experienced guys. Low ball offers are, despite all the teeth gnashing here and elsewhere, not unique, and many ultimately successful negotiations begin with the one side taking an extreme position and the other countering in kind.
B. We don't know much of anything about how Lester's side replied. We don't know if they countered at something equally outrageous or more outrageous, we don't know if they were silent, we don't know anything really. (I am assuming that the $70 mm offer was indeed outrageous when made for the purpose of discussion. I know that some here have argued to the contrary.)
C. Most failed negotiations that I have seen in business are fairly evaluated as the fault of both sides on some level. It takes a special kind of hubris to pin the fault entirely on one side or the other. Not that it doesn't happen that way; one side can screw it up. But usually it's a joint effort with varying degrees of fault, in my view.
D. If Lester's biggest desire was to remain in Boston and he was prepared to do so at 5/$110 mm, did his agents ever message that in some way or the other to the Red Sox at some point before things broke down? That is another thing that is not known.
E. Would the MLB PA had anything to say -- even informally -- if Lester had taken a 5/$110 mm deal? (This is a side point).
My overall point is that the rush to pin all of this on the Red Sox ignores that we really don't know much about how these negotiations proceeded except that the Sox made what looks like a very low opening bid.
After that, we have a lot of people essentially saying "see, that bid is ridiculous, the deal didn't get done, I know I have no other facts...so Lucky and Ben suck!"
Now it remains 100% true that the 100% of the fault may indeed lie squarely with the Boston Red Sox.
I just don't know how people get there without knowing more than the bits of knowledge that they currently have.
And I don't remotely understand being so convinced of your position with only the threadbare facts that are actually known.
Last, I write all of this from the perspective of a huge Jon Lester fan and as someone who is indeed pissed that a deal was not done last Spring and who was totally annoyed at the time. I just don't know who I should be angry at.
Here's what I was driving at:
The anger underlying the failed negotiations point is premised on:
1. Sox lowball $70 mm offer in March or April, 2014. (That number is probably right and has not been disputed by the Red Sox, as far as I know).
2. The notion that Lester was so insulted that he did not negotiate further or that it poisoned the negotiations irrevocably.
3. Alternatively, if they did negotiate and the negotiations were not poisoned, the fact remains that the negotiations did not lead to a contract, and this is the fault of the Red Sox.
4. Lester would have taken 5/$110 mm if the Sox only had offered it. That deal was theirs to ink if they only were willing to make an offer at that level.
However:
A. Lester is represented by experienced guys. Low ball offers are, despite all the teeth gnashing here and elsewhere, not unique, and many ultimately successful negotiations begin with the one side taking an extreme position and the other countering in kind.
B. We don't know much of anything about how Lester's side replied. We don't know if they countered at something equally outrageous or more outrageous, we don't know if they were silent, we don't know anything really. (I am assuming that the $70 mm offer was indeed outrageous when made for the purpose of discussion. I know that some here have argued to the contrary.)
C. Most failed negotiations that I have seen in business are fairly evaluated as the fault of both sides on some level. It takes a special kind of hubris to pin the fault entirely on one side or the other. Not that it doesn't happen that way; one side can screw it up. But usually it's a joint effort with varying degrees of fault, in my view.
D. If Lester's biggest desire was to remain in Boston and he was prepared to do so at 5/$110 mm, did his agents ever message that in some way or the other to the Red Sox at some point before things broke down? That is another thing that is not known.
E. Would the MLB PA had anything to say -- even informally -- if Lester had taken a 5/$110 mm deal? (This is a side point).
My overall point is that the rush to pin all of this on the Red Sox ignores that we really don't know much about how these negotiations proceeded except that the Sox made what looks like a very low opening bid.
After that, we have a lot of people essentially saying "see, that bid is ridiculous, the deal didn't get done, I know I have no other facts...so Lucky and Ben suck!"
Now it remains 100% true that the 100% of the fault may indeed lie squarely with the Boston Red Sox.
I just don't know how people get there without knowing more than the bits of knowledge that they currently have.
And I don't remotely understand being so convinced of your position with only the threadbare facts that are actually known.
Last, I write all of this from the perspective of a huge Jon Lester fan and as someone who is indeed pissed that a deal was not done last Spring and who was totally annoyed at the time. I just don't know who I should be angry at.
The Red Sox and Lester are parting very amicably and seem to believe the other side handled everything with class and respect. This point will continue to be ignored in the years to come, however.
It's never-never land, unless Lester in a moment of candor says, yes I would have taken 6 for $120, for example. It is probably true, though, that the $70MM offer, if made, made it very easy for him to roll the dice on the season. Why the heavy lift to even get to respectable territory?
In any case, the only thing that matters now is how effectively the RS commit the resources they were prepared to devote to Lester, and other resources.
And longer term, they need to figure out how to accommodate a market that goes only up.
EDIT. I do believe that if they keep this classy, this along with the amicable parting with Jacoby last year, will cause the stereotype of their dealings to die in time. That stereotype was fact based for at least 40 years, going back easily to Burleson, Lynn and Fisk.
In any case, the only thing that matters now is how effectively the RS commit the resources they were prepared to devote to Lester, and other resources.
And longer term, they need to figure out how to accommodate a market that goes only up.
EDIT. I do believe that if they keep this classy, this along with the amicable parting with Jacoby last year, will cause the stereotype of their dealings to die in time. That stereotype was fact based for at least 40 years, going back easily to Burleson, Lynn and Fisk.
KillerBs said:
They may well have gotten much closer to 5/$110 last spring than we fans and the media realize, but if so it was likely an incentive-laden deal. I can't find it but there was a column this summer by Alex Speier (I think) that had quotes from the FO indicating that there was a range of offers from the team.
This was probably a learning experience for Ben - not all players are the same. Dustin Pedroia apparently wasn't insulted by a lower initial offer but Lester sure was and obviously complained to teammates, hence 4/$70 getting leaked by one of them to the media.
EpsteinsGorillaSuit said:
Negotiations are negotiations. While some people think there are "rules" to negotiation (and while there certainly are various customs and cultures for particular types of negotiations), at the end of the day there's an acceptable deal or there isn't one.
Personally I think people who treat a negotiation as some sort of elaborate and inflexible patterned dance of manners often miss the point.
That's an interesting way to think about it, but I think that your simplifying assumptions -- most notably the dichotomous distribution between very good and very bad as well as the discounting of year-to-year variance -- are stacked pretty heavily in favor of your conclusion.CSteinhardt said:
My main point is that, given their insider knowledge, the Red Sox were in the best position to know whether Lester's second half was predictive of his performance in 2014 or whether it was not. They got it wrong, and as a result lost an opportunity to sign Lester at what would have been a discount to market value now.
It may have been the case that, as DeJesus Built My Hot Rod argued all spring, they did not really want him back at something that was even that close to market value. There's a reasonable argument that Lester is a #1A and not a #1, and that even 6/$120 is closer to #1 money than they wanted to go.
They can win in 2015 without Lester and the risk that any long-term contract to a pitcher entails; let's see how they go about doing it. But, I think they again are showing far more restraint with their own free agents, this time without even the compensation pick excuse, than they do with other teams' free agents.
Regarding Cespedes, you're not considering the option of taking the packages of prospects that other teams were offering for Lester. What they get in trade for Cespedes almost certainly will be worth more than the compensation pick they would have gotten for Lester, but what we never heard were what they gave up when they chose Cespedes. The value of the second best package available in trade for Lester at last year's deadline is the appropriate comparison to what they get for Cespedes this winter.
First, noone really knows what prospects were offered for Lester. Second, the prospects may have had little value to the Sox other than trade fodder. Cespedes may allow them to avoid trading their top prospects. It's not quite as simple of a comparison as you're making it.Plympton91 said:
Hank Scorpio said:
Not exactly a smear campaign. Some of this is repeated sentiments from what Cherington alluded to throughout the last season. I wish the FO could issue a gag order and move on.
So what begins? Perhaps you are not going in this direction, but those comments are hardly a "smear campaign."
If Ben is being honest -- and I assume that he is -- that Lester did not reply to an opening bid is information that is both factual and does shed some light on the process. Does it shed some negative light on Lester? In my view, yes. I don't understand why a guy who wanted to be in Boston just shut down negotiations. I get that a lowball offer carries that risk, but I don't think it's a reasonable tack for someone who says he wants to be in Boston to take.
In any event, I don't blame Ben for letting us know a bit more about what happened last spring. The Sox are taking a beating, and I think unfairly so, for that offer and the fact that a deal wasn't done around opening day of 2014. Letting us know that the opening offer wasn't responded to and more negotiations didn't take place is, I think, fair game.
If Ben is being honest -- and I assume that he is -- that Lester did not reply to an opening bid is information that is both factual and does shed some light on the process. Does it shed some negative light on Lester? In my view, yes. I don't understand why a guy who wanted to be in Boston just shut down negotiations. I get that a lowball offer carries that risk, but I don't think it's a reasonable tack for someone who says he wants to be in Boston to take.
In any event, I don't blame Ben for letting us know a bit more about what happened last spring. The Sox are taking a beating, and I think unfairly so, for that offer and the fact that a deal wasn't done around opening day of 2014. Letting us know that the opening offer wasn't responded to and more negotiations didn't take place is, I think, fair game.
Not malice, just stupidity, in all likelihood. Why make something an issue that isn't any longer? A tad defensive about mishandling the spring, I'd say.
Just let it go ...
EDIT -- If you're going to get drawn in every time Tony Mazz does a drive by on Lucchino in the Globe, you deserve what you get. Don't play the game. This will go away the day after tomorrow.
Just let it go ...
EDIT -- If you're going to get drawn in every time Tony Mazz does a drive by on Lucchino in the Globe, you deserve what you get. Don't play the game. This will go away the day after tomorrow.
dcmissle said:
It may just be reading the quotes vs hearing them but it definitely comes off as being overly defensive about the first offer. Also, "The 4/70 offer did not reflect our position. Jon knows that." seems to run counter to the fact that Lester shut down negotiations.
foulkehampshire said:
I agree they're not trashing him, but it does seem like they're trying to paint it as "Lester wouldn't hear us out".
Ivanvamp pretty much sums up my mindset at the top of this page, and 5/$90 is where I feel they should have come in, possibly winding up somewhere around 5/$100-6/$110.
The whole "we never got a chance" to dick around with numbers like 4/$78 and 5/$85 as part of a "negotiation" comes off as petty and desperate.
If BC brought this up himself in a presser, I agree that he should shut up. In, on the other hand, he is bombarded with questions on the topic WHY WHY WHY over and over again from the media, I give him somewhat of a pass for trying to both answer the question and try to get on with it.
I admire the team's willingness in the most recent negotiations to set a value and stick with it, even if their offer was ultimately not successful. Someone needs to ask Ben why this tactic was employed so late in the process - they wouldn't be getting killed by everyone today if they had offered Lester the Wainwright deal and he turned it down.
TheoShmeo said:
What -was- the market at that time? The spring 2014 4/70 seems to be above Anabiel Sanchez's 2012 5 years 80, give or take which seems like a fair place to start coming off what seemed like 1 1/2 mediocre season and 1/2 a good season.
Fall 2014 Lester was -more- than worth 6 years 150... but that's not the Lester the Sox were looking at in spring 2014. 7 years 155 for a much much younger Tanaka doesn't strike me as a fair comparision, either, so... Homer Bailey...? Homer Bailey got 6 years 105 in spring 2014, so that's your closest analogue, except Bailey was coming off a much better campaign.
4 years 70 doesn't seem terribly off compared to what Homer Bailey ended up getting.
LahoudOrBillyC said:
Agreed.
I'm not sure what people want BC to say. Perhaps he could have been a *tad* more graceful, but hell, you have guys like Olney saying "The Red Sox need to just admit they ****ed up." Of course BC is going to get peppered with 4/70 commentary, he can't just ignore every single one of them and hope they go away.
dcmissle said:
BB doesn't work in a place where a press corps will follow you around and hound you about the process until you comment on it.
This isn't a smear campaign. Things happened, he's explaining them now that negotiations aren't ongoing and sensitive.
edit--I'm assuming you mean Billy Beane here, because we're talking baseball and not football.
You would have given Lester $20-22M a year before last season? He was coming off two years that certainly looked more like a #2 starter than an ace. 4/70 was low perhaps, but not insulting. 5/110 would have been a massive overpay based on the information at the time. Feels to me like Lester looked at the offer, talked to his agents and decided his best route was to play out 2014 and change the reasonable market for himself. If he'd repeated his 2013, or even worse his 2012 he's be looking at deals a lot closer to 4/70 than 6/155.Hank Scorpio said:
nattysez said:
Yeah, I mean, I'm not really in the camp that's super pissed off about the 4/70 offer, but you can't start the negotiation with that and then shield yourself by saying it didn't really represent your feelings on the player. I know you never start with the highest deal you're willing to offer, but you also shouldn't make an initial offer that is very far off your valuations.
What Cherington is saying, somewhat awkwardly, is that Jon should have known that they had plenty of room in their opening bid to go up. And that the end point would of course be much higher.
It is common to make an initial offer that is artificially low and that is made in a context where both sides know that the end point will be much higher.
I'm not a big fan of starting way below the intended end point but I haven't ever negotiated a free agent contract of a professional athlete, and don't know what's customary. I do know, however, that there is an implicit understanding in many commercial settings that an initial bid is just a starting point for discussions and not a reflection of where anyone thinks the final deal will be.
It is common to make an initial offer that is artificially low and that is made in a context where both sides know that the end point will be much higher.
I'm not a big fan of starting way below the intended end point but I haven't ever negotiated a free agent contract of a professional athlete, and don't know what's customary. I do know, however, that there is an implicit understanding in many commercial settings that an initial bid is just a starting point for discussions and not a reflection of where anyone thinks the final deal will be.
Otherwise known as anchoring.TheoShmeo said:
But 'walk away' is really different, and very public, in Sports.
Folks have speculated that the years were more important to Lester than the money. If his heart was set on getting a six-year deal and this is what the team opened up with, I can see why he decided to shut it down.
That being said, if the team signed him to a 6/$115 deal last spring there would have been a fair number of posters on this board up in arms about overpaying him.
That being said, if the team signed him to a 6/$115 deal last spring there would have been a fair number of posters on this board up in arms about overpaying him.
If Lester had asked for 8/200, should the Red Sox have been hurt and walked away?
The job of Lester's agents, their reason for existing, is to get Lester the best possible deal (taking into consideration what is important to Lester). It seems like they did so. The End.
The job of Lester's agents, their reason for existing, is to get Lester the best possible deal (taking into consideration what is important to Lester). It seems like they did so. The End.
When I heard what the initial offer to Lester was at the beginning of this past season, I couldn't believe it. I thought it was ridiculously low as a starting point. But it is all water under the bridge now and Ben should move on an line up some additions pretty darn quick.
I don't know about being hurt, but they definitely should have walked away. That's no more serious an offer than what the Red Sox started with.LahoudOrBillyC said:
The Cherington quotes are an admission that the team f**ked up, and that their strategy poisoned the opportunity to get a deal done last spring.
To me, the right thing to do was make an offer that brought 2014 up to $19 million as a signing bonus, and then $19 million a year for 5 more years. That would be about 5/$100, which leaves room to get to 6/$117. And if that's where they ended up, I'd be totally o.k. with that.
TheoShmeo said:
I think what he's saying (in fact I'm certain) is that Lester and his agents wanted to test the Free Agent market and were, under no circumstances, interested in settling for a contract that hadn't been tested on the open market - particularly in years (versus value).
No animosity by either party. Just the truth.
You guys are holding the Red Sox to an impossible standard. Implying those tweets are the start of a smear campaign is about as dumb as it gets. No matter what Cherington says, he loses, even if he says nothing. So he might as well tell the truth, which appears to be:
The Sox made an opening offer of 4/70. That was the start of a negotiation, not an insult. Lester's agent may very well have said "That's not good enough; you need to come back with something much better". But, for that to happen, it's also incumbent for Lester's agent to give Cherington something to work with. Instead, it appears negotiations were essentially suspended.
I get some of you don't like the 4/70. But can someone honestly make the argument that opening with 5/100 or 6/115 would have gotten a deal done?
Credit is due to Lester and his agents. Credit is also due to the Sox for (a) holding a hard line; and (b) not causing the negotiations to get personal. There was no "twilight of his career" nonsense.
The Sox made an opening offer of 4/70. That was the start of a negotiation, not an insult. Lester's agent may very well have said "That's not good enough; you need to come back with something much better". But, for that to happen, it's also incumbent for Lester's agent to give Cherington something to work with. Instead, it appears negotiations were essentially suspended.
I get some of you don't like the 4/70. But can someone honestly make the argument that opening with 5/100 or 6/115 would have gotten a deal done?
Credit is due to Lester and his agents. Credit is also due to the Sox for (a) holding a hard line; and (b) not causing the negotiations to get personal. There was no "twilight of his career" nonsense.
I believe that the Levinson Bros. had a lot to prove after the Pedroia contract. They know he left a lot of money on the table by signing that team-friendly extension and the Levinsons weren't happy about it. They weren't going to let the Red Sox stick it to another one of their clients and make them look bad again. Yes, that is what Pedroia wanted but the agent wants to make his client the most money possible because that's their job, it helps their prestige and these agents have egos.
Lester put his trust in the Levinsons and it all played out perfectly for them, no matter where Lester decided to go.
Lester put his trust in the Levinsons and it all played out perfectly for them, no matter where Lester decided to go.
If anything, Cherington's comments are an indication that Lester was planning to test the market anyway.Plympton91 said:
The one thing no one seems to be mentioning is that Lester said he wanted to retire a Red Sox. They came back and offered him FOUR years. THAT is the slap in the face, not the 70 mil. They should have offered him a Pedroia like deal for 7 or 8 years for 100-120 mil or whatever (just throwing #s out). He wanted to RETIRE a Red Sox and they came back with a FOUR year offer and that's kind of a fuck-you to some degree. I think that would have hurt me too after I just said that I want to be a lifetime Red Sox. At least LOWBALL HIM with a long contract with plenty of bonuses.
Again, you're assuming that Lester and the agents would have agreed to a pre-FA contract offer. See Scherzer, Max.
It is what it is.
It is what it is.
Again, Lester's agents could have responded with:Hee Sox Choi said:
"You know, Jon really means it when he says he wants to retire as a member of the Red Sox. We need you to come back with something much longer in term, like you did with Pedroia".
That gives the Red Sox something to work with, a basic principle in negotiation strategy 101.
Hee Sox Choi said:
Negotiate all you want, but being offended by or taking as a slap in the face a 4/70 contract is silly. There were doubts about his career trend and the pitcher he would be, and locking his 2020 value in based on what each side felt was likely at that point didn't seem great. I think the Red Sox could have done like 5/105 maybe or could have had that spring training ceiling a little higher, but I don't agree with the conventional media wisdom that the Red Sox botched this.
Lester said no to three different things as his choice:
1) No to a 4/70 in Spring Training 2014 before he had really reestablished his value with a dominant season
2) No to discussing things during the regular season
3) No to a 6/135 offer to return to Boston.
Maybe there were hurt feelings here, maybe he is really excited about all the great things he can get with his 136th million dollars that he couldn't for less, maybe after the trade he opened his eyes to the possibility of being in different places. Those things we won't know. I don't think the Red Sox should have offered more than they felt his value was, just because the Cubs did. He very well could be worth more to the Cubs than us, or it could be Winner's Curse for them, or we could have underestimated.
But if he really wanted to come back to Boston, he had the three big opportunities he said no to above, or could have responded to any of the three with something specific (i.e. "4/70 won't work, but 5/105 will get it done today" and "I don't want to negotiate during the season, but we will sign for 6/132 at the All Star break"). I think if it weren't the Cubs offering significantly more dollars, and effectively a seventh year to be with people he knows well and try to achieve something as special as the 2004 he watched from the minors, he would be back. Given how it played out you could have either either kept him from getting to the Cubs offer, or improved your offer enough that it trumps the Cubs on the totality.
Neither of those things do I think is a simple easy smart answer, and so I wish him well pursuing a championship that would be an amazing career achievement, and most importantly pursuing his first major league hit with more opportunities.
koufax37 said:
I agree that its not how I would (or have) negotiated. Its not an entirely unheard of strategy, though, to just walk, so I think its totally uncalled for to call it "offended." Lester's people knew damn well that it wasn't the Sox final offer, but their strategy was to not counter with something equally ridiculous on the high side to get things going. That's a reasonable strategy. But it *is* risky. And it paid off. I also dont think the Sox "botched it." They, too took a risk. He could have taken 4/70, or negotiated it to 5/100 (or whatever) and sucked or gotten hurt. Or not taken it and sucked ot gotten hurt. Just about every analysis is hindsight, piled with wishcasting, and stirred by people, most of whom talk about "negotiations" in a way that suggests they don't completely get it.
That's how it goes. Most of the time when patients die it isn't the doctors fault.