The premature re-signing Lester thread

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I think the team just had a complete shift in philosophy over a short span. I get the sense that they previously wanted to retain Lester on a deal with a shorter term, as they were feeling the effects of the Punto trade and wanted to build the team differently. Hence, no long-term commitments to players 30 and older. That is where that 4yr/$70M deal came in, even though it was very ill-advised. I'm no GM but my immediate thought was "That HAS to be disrespectful". 
 
* * * *
 
I'm still trying to understand why we signed both Sandoval AND Ramirez. That's an extra $100M that could have gone towards securing both Lester and Shields, all while retaining our prospects. I'd rather wait it out this year and truly see what we have with Xander, Betts, and JBJ, as opposed to what's currently going on.

Agree on both of these points. Not exactly sure what changed - perhaps there's a mandate to make the playoffs next year - but clearly something did.

Oh well, it's not my money. As long as any potential "dead money" doesn't affect future team building, I don't care how much they spend on guys.

 

[jimbobim]

Agree on both of these points. Not exactly sure what changed - perhaps there's a mandate to make the playoffs next year - but clearly something did.

Oh well, it's not my money. As long as any potential "dead money" doesn't affect future team building, I don't care how much they spend on guys.

What if the FO is viewing it in a context of "We have a top 5 hitter in the league right now generating a sizable of our runs and we can rely on that production maybe for this year and next but even then our lineup was highly disappointing around him.
 
Cherington has addressed LF and 3b and in turn the need for help in the middle of the lineup specifically 5/6 before the Winter Meetings even get here.
 
Now the sole focus can be on trading a logjam of young starters for guys who may be closer to FA but are far more established. A bonus those young starters and our abundance of competant but questionable veteran OF's Vic Craig Nava Cespedes (ascending order of value) can be used to acquire bullpen depth SP help or low minor restocking   

 

[radsoxfan]

 There is some value in not being on the hook for nine figures if things had gone badly during 2014, but when you're considering whether to sign a long-term contract anyway, getting a one-year option (or IOW, a 'one-fifth to one-seventh of the total contract' option) is an extremely limited benefit.
 

 
I'm not sure I would gloss over this point. There is A LOT of value in not being on the hook for a 100+ million contract for a guy who injured or not very good.  That's the whole point.  Signing pitchers to big money contracts is risky.  Signing pitchers to big money contracts starting a year in the future is really risky.  
 
 

 Even so, in a best case scenario for the rotation, would they not be interested in resigning Lester? I think they try to retain him even if Buchholz had put up 30+ good starts and a couple of the kids had shown promise; there just aren't that many pitchers of his quality (even excluding 2014) available, and none of the others are Jon Freaking Lester. And if they would have wanted to retain him either way, why wait and do it at market rates? I just don't think a one-year option to see if he breaks down completely is worth $30+ million, especially when they're still going to be tying him up for six+ years.

 
 

People need to stop looking at the spring training negotiation through the prism of the current Lester people are bidding on.  There was no guarantee that this person was going to exist.  If he blew out his arm or had a similar season to his 2012, would they be desperate to sign him?  What makes you so sure they would have been desperate to sign him regardless of what happened in 2014? They could have focused on someone like Scherzer or Shields. 
 
FWIW, if Lester blew out his arm or went all Justin Masterson in 2014, I wouldn't have called the FO geniuses ether.  They are making these decisions ex ante. The end result is not how the decision should be judged, but the process (which I don't think was as bad as people are claiming).   Offering 6 years and 100+ million to start a year into the future is a gigantic risk.  Maybe 4/70 wasn't the ideal starting point, I won't deny that.  But I can certainly understand not wanting to commit to 6 years starting a year in advance for a pitcher who is a year removed from a pretty bad season. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

On the obvious flaw, even if you don't credit Gammons' report that the Bailey deal + $1 gets it done, it was clear from Lester's public comments that he would have signed at a significant discount. It's also just how this market operates -- if you're signing a year before FA, you're giving up the ability to test the waters and let the market decide in exchange for certainty. I don't think our not knowing exactly how much they're overpaying precludes discussion of the fact that they're overpaying.
 
On the much more important flaw, it's important, but it's not that important. The Red Sox (and apparently 6 other teams) want to sign him, not because of what he did in 2014, but because of what he's done over his career. Nothing about Jon Lester has fundamentally changed over the past season. He had a great year, the best of his career; this does not mean that he will continue to pitch at this level, or even effectively, going forward. He didn't get injured; this does not mean that he will not get injured going forward. There is some value in not being on the hook for nine figures if things had gone badly during 2014, but when you're considering whether to sign a long-term contract anyway, getting a one-year option (or IOW, a 'one-fifth to one-seventh of the total contract' option) is an extremely limited benefit.
 
More convincing is the change in the Red Sox own circumstances since ST; things fell apart. Buchholz Buchholz'd, Doubront imploded, none of the kids established themselves, and Lackey and Peavy are gone (the team's decision, but still). So yeah, it'd be fair to argue that Jon Lester (or any available frontline SP) is a bit more valuable to the Red Sox right now than back when they had an actual pitching rotation. Even so, in a best case scenario for the rotation, would they not be interested in resigning Lester? I think they try to retain him even if Buchholz had put up 30+ good starts and a couple of the kids had shown promise; there just aren't that many pitchers of his quality (even excluding 2014) available, and none of the others are Jon Freaking Lester. And if they would have wanted to retain him either way, why wait and do it at market rates? I just don't think a one-year option to see if he breaks down completely is worth $30+ million, especially when they're still going to be tying him up for six+ years.

He was coming off two years where his strikeouts were way down and he wasn't performing at the levels he had earlier in his career. This year saw a major jump in Ks, a drop in walks, an less HR allowed.
So yes in terms of contracts he's a different player, if Jon had been a FA before last season he wouldn't be getting the offers he has. He bet on himself to return to form and stay healthy, and it payed off.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I'm not sure I would gloss over this point. There is A LOT of value in not being on the hook for a 100+ million contract for a guy who injured or not very good.  That's the whole point.  Signing pitchers to big money contracts is risky.  Signing pitchers to big money contracts starting a year in the future is really risky.  

I'd agree that signing pitchers to big money contracts is risky, and that doing it a year in advance adds risk, but "really risky"? I think that's a overstating it on a deal of this length; you're only getting the option to back out for one of the seven total years. It's counter intuitive, but the longer the deal, the less that one extra year of evaluation is worth. 
 

People need to stop looking at the spring training negotiation through the prism of the current Lester people are bidding on.  There was no guarantee that this person was going to exist.  If he blew out his arm or had a similar season to his 2012, would they be desperate to sign him?  What makes you so sure they would have been desperate to sign him regardless of what happened in 2014? They could have focused on someone like Scherzer or Shields. 
 

 

It's the same person. Yes the price has gone up because he had a great year; but Lester has been a top SP for years, and what he put up in 2014 was, like his 2013, within the range of likely outcomes for someone in that class (2013 may not have been the complete return to form you'd like after a subpar and concerning 2012, but he was back in range with his overall numbers and punctuated the year with a great postseason). Nothing fundamentally changed. The Red Sox should be smart enough to know he probably won't pitch at this 2014 level again, and make their decision based on his whole career. 
 
Also, it's worth noting that if they'd signed Lester to a below market deal, they'd have more space to also focus on Scherzer or Shields on the FA market. 

The end result is not how the decision should be judged, but the process (which I don't think was as bad as people are claiming).   Offering 6 years and 100+ million to start a year into the future is a gigantic risk.  Maybe 4/70 wasn't the ideal starting point, I won't deny that.  But I can certainly understand not wanting to commit to 6 years starting a year in advance for a pitcher who is a year removed from a pretty bad season. 

The process appears to be the problem here. A single lowball offer? If Lester's agent just misrepresented it to him in an effort to egg his client towards free agency, fine. But if they seriously refused to 'bid against themselves' past 4/70 in order to get an extra season to decide, and are now willing to offer 6/140, that either reflects a mistake in the original negotiations or broader concerns about their approach.

 

[pdub]

Funny enough I'm actually fine with Sandoval and Ramirez coming here. I'm just not fine when such a position is filled at the expense of another. If the team has a budget of, say, $300M to allocate to new players, it will suddenly find itself trading prospects to fill other needs once its reached that limit. For the needs we have, that means trading Xander or Mookie. We can't sign Shields because we used his money on Sandoval, so now we target a cost-controlled Hamels and trade Xander for him. That's my main concern. 
 
Of course, if we can re-sign Lester and trade Cespedes+ for a #2, I'll be ecstatic. Basically, I'll be thrilled if we keep both Xander and Mookie. 

 

[OnWisc]

Funny enough I'm actually fine with Sandoval and Ramirez coming here. I'm just not fine when such a position is filled at the expense of another. If the team has a budget of, say, $300M to allocate to new players, it will suddenly find itself trading prospects to fill other needs once its reached that limit. For the needs we have, that means trading Xander or Mookie. We can't sign Shields because we used his money on Sandoval, so now we target a cost-controlled Hamels and trade Xander for him. That's my main concern. 
 
Of course, if we can re-sign Lester and trade Cespedes+ for a #2, I'll be ecstatic. Basically, I'll be thrilled if we keep both Xander and Mookie. 

Isn't Shields likely to go for less than Hamels' AAV? If we can't afford to sign Shields, we can't afford to deal for Hamels.

 

[JimD]

The process appears to be the problem here. A single lowball offer? If Lester's agent just misrepresented it to him in an effort to egg his client towards free agency, fine. But if they seriously refused to 'bid against themselves' past 4/70 in order to get an extra season to decide, and are now willing to offer 6/140, that either reflects a mistake in the original negotiations or broader concerns about their approach.

While 4/$70 was the only 'official' offer, all indications are that both sides engaged in substantive discussions to try and find the framework of a deal. I believe we can safely assume that the dollars on the table increased significantly above $70 million, although likely with incentives and/or options attached. Many people on this board seem to believe that Lester could have been signed to a deal a little below or above $100 million, but it's quite possible that such a deal was never possible and that the pitcher's idea of a 'hometown discount' was using the Scherzer deal as a comp all along.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

While 4/$70 was the only 'official' offer, all indications are that both sides engaged in substantive discussions to try and find the framework of a deal. I believe we can safely assume that the dollars on the table increased significantly above $70 million, although likely with incentives and/or options attached. Many people on this board seem to believe that Lester could have been signed to a deal a little below or above $100 million, but it's quite possible that such a deal was never possible and that the pitcher's idea of a 'hometown discount' was using the Scherzer deal as a comp all along.

I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. The team took a ton of flak for the 4/70 offer, and LL is extremely PR conscious; I think it's safer to assume that if they had gone beyond that initial offer prior to the season, we'd know about it.
 
On your last point, the reason many people think Lester would have signed for just over 6/105 because Gammons reported it, for whatever that's worth. The idea that he was after top dollar doesn't make sense in light of Lester's public comments during that period; though it's worth noting that the deal Scherzer rejected is essentially market value for a 4-WAR pitcher; not a bad comp at all.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. The team took a ton of flak for the 4/70 offer, and LL is extremely PR conscious; I think it's safer to assume that if they had gone beyond that initial offer prior to the season, we'd know about it...

 
Your conclusion is much shakier than JimD's. You're assuming the Red Sox brass would leak information about private and ongoing negotiations during the season. I find that harder to believe. Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Also, it's worth noting that if they'd signed Lester to a below market deal, they'd have more space to also focus on Scherzer or Shields on the FA market. 
The process appears to be the problem here. A single lowball offer? If Lester's agent just misrepresented it to him in an effort to egg his client towards free agency, fine. But if they seriously refused to 'bid against themselves' past 4/70 in order to get an extra season to decide, and are now willing to offer 6/140, that either reflects a mistake in the original negotiations or broader concerns about their approach.

 
If they signed Lester to a below FA market 6 year deal, and he fell on his face or blew his arm out, they would really be in big trouble.  Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
 
FWIW, I think 5 years, at 20M a year was a pretty reasonable final offer Lester out of the spring. An opening offer of 4 years at 17.5M is probably a bit light on the AAV, even for an opening bid.  They probably should have offered something like 4 at 19 per year (76 million), and hopefully caving on a year and another million AAV would have gotten it done.  It didn't happen, and 4/70 looks bad in retrospect, but its honestly not so crazy considering the risk involved and the fact that it was just an opening offer.
 
You start making huge offers to players year(s) before the contract is set to even kick in, and thats how you end up with the Ryan Howards of the world. 

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Your conclusion is much shakier than JimD's. You're assuming the Red Sox brass would leak information about private and ongoing negotiations during the season. I find that harder to believe. Not everything is a conspiracy.

My conclusion is that they didn't go beyond 4/70 prior to the season*. This is in line with what was reported and what has transpired; if you or JimD can share what "indications" there were that they went "significantly above" 4/70, please share (not snarky, I'm just not aware of anything that would suggest this). Also, was half joking and entirely speculating on the LL comment, but we did hear about the 4/70, didn't we? Between that and, well, the entire regime, I'm surprised that you'd dismiss FO leakage out of hand.
 
*I'm not talking about during the season; we know that the team did attempt to re-engage Lester during the season, but at that point he didn't want the distraction

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I just realized, with all the fake rumors and twitter posts going around, I'm not even quite sure where the Sox offer stands.
 
I know we offered something like 6/120 or so, and the Cubs offered something like 6/135. There were reports the Sox offered anywhere from 6/130 to 6/145 following the Cubs news, but I'm not even sure if any of those were ever substantiated.
 
I feel a lot better about Lester visiting the Giants, Braves and Cardinals if his top offer is what the Cubs offered, rather than the reported 6/145. I don't think any of those teams would top 6/145, but Lester not quickly taking such an offer from Boston indicates he's going after top dollar. Hopefully he's just shopping for a top offer to take back to the Red Sox to either match or come close to.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

If they signed Lester to a below FA market 6 year deal, and he fell on his face or blew his arm out, they would really be in big trouble.  Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

You keep saying this, and I keep acknowledging it; there's clearly some value in getting to wait and see if they flame out. The point is in quantifying it -- how much is that extra option year with no commitment worth? And again, bear in mind that there are six more years to this deal where you won't have the ability to bail out. 

FWIW, I think 5 years, at 20M a year was a pretty reasonable final offer Lester out of the spring. An opening offer of 4 years at 17.5M is probably a bit light on the AAV, even for an opening bid.  They probably should have offered something like 4 at 19 per year (76 million), and hopefully caving on a year and another million AAV would have gotten it done.  It didn't happen, and 4/70 looks bad in retrospect, but its honestly not so crazy considering the risk involved and the fact that it was just an opening offer.

Was 5@20 actually offered? Not snarky, I haven't seen that, and my whole bone of contention here is that it doesn't appear that they ever went abov 4/70; a citation would be great.
 

You start making huge offers to players year(s) before the contract is set to even kick in, and thats how you end up with the Ryan Howards of the world. 

Just not comparable. Howard's deal was at or above market for an elite 1b and would have been a major overpay if it had gone into effect immediately, and it was done further in advance. It's just as meaningful (read: not) to say "Signing them early is how you end up with a team full of cheap, homegrown talent like Chris Sale."

 

[radsoxfan]

You keep saying this, and I keep acknowledging it; there's clearly some value in getting to wait and see if they flame out. The point is in quantifying it -- how much is that extra option year with no commitment worth? And again, bear in mind that there are six more years to this deal where you won't have the ability to bail out. 
 
Was 5@20 actually offered? Not snarky, I haven't seen that, and my whole bone of contention here is that it doesn't appear that they ever went abov 4/70; a citation would be great.
 

 
Agreed it's hard to quantify. But the ability to not lose 100+ million dollars (or at least overpay 50+ million) is worth quite a lot.  Tens of millions of dollars. Pitchers get hurt and underperform all the time. If Lester gets hurt or sucks like in 2012, you don't even entertain anything approaching a 6 year deal for him this offseason. It's not like Lester had a 90+% probability of performing as he did in 2014. 
 
As to the rest of your post, I'm sorry I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean to imply the Red Sox offered 5/100. I was just saying that 5 years at 20M/per year would have been a fair final offer before the season in my opinion.
 
4/70 was very clearly an opening offer, not the highest they were willing to go.  I don't think anyone disputes that. We just don't know how much they were willing to move. 

 

[ArgentinaSOXfan]

@JeffPassan
 
Toronto got Russell Martin. It got Josh Donaldson. And it's still in strong on Jon Lester.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

 
Agreed it's hard to quantify. But the ability to not lose 100+ million dollars (or at least overpay 50+ million) is worth quite a lot.  Tens of millions of dollars. Pitchers get hurt and underperform all the time. If Lester gets hurt or sucks like in 2012, you don't even entertain anything approaching a 6 year deal for him this offseason. It's not like Lester had a 90+% probability of performing as he did in 2014. 

I'm assuming you don't credit the Gammons report, but for the sake of argument let's say Lester would have signed for 6/108, or 18 per. Current reports have the high offer at 6/135-144, or 23-24 per. Even if the market stays there and doesn't keep going, that's a premium of 33% for one year of getting to back out. You're right that Lester's 2014 wasn't extremely likely, and that pitchers get hurt and underperform all the time -- and the fact that Lester had a great 2014 doesn't mean he's not going to get hurt or underperform over the six years they're now trying to sign him to at premium dollars; just that it didn't happen in 2014. Avoiding a commitment if it he'd gotten injured in 2014 is a benefit, but limited to the one year out of a total of seven, I don't think it's worth paying a 33% premium on six of the years for. Assuming the player isn't coming back from injury, I'd generally say 10-15% seems fair.
 
How could they have known the market would go there? Well, 6/144 is the deal Scherzer rejected last spring. By ERA+ Scherzer's past three years are on par with what Lester did over six years through 2013. It's true that Lester had put up most of that from 2008-2011, but there's a scarcity of SP talent available and six years at over 4 bWAR/per (fWAR had him even better if you're into that sort of thing), including a down year, gets you into that conversation barring recent injury or meltdown. Even if 2013 was his new level rather than the low end of his normal range, that's 'worth' $18m based on 3.0 bWAR and $6m/win (and subject to inflation). If he flames out in 2014, well, that definitely sucks, but by the second half of the deal maybe he comes back or retires and besides by this point you could only be paying for 2-2.5 WAR/year anyway.
 

4/70 was very clearly an opening offer, not the highest they were willing to go.  I don't think anyone disputes that. We just don't know how much they were willing to move. 
 
 

We also don't know why negotiations broke down prior to the season. We heard about Lester's eagerness to stay at a discount; we heard about the 4/70 offer; to my knowledge we didn't hear anything else until midseason, when the team tried to re-engage and was rebuffed. Without an explanation, the process that led to Lester hitting FA is a concern in my book. But I note that you've expressed some concerns about certain aspects of how it got handled, so maybe we're just down to semantics in terms of what constitutes a failure of process.

 

[TheYaz67]

A friend reminded me the other day that apparently Lester thinks Hanley is an ass, dating back to their days together in the Sox system (they were 2005 Portland Sea Dog teammates) - he recalled an interview from about 5 years ago when Lester admitted that he did not get along with him at all, and that he was the last person on the team he would be friends with - not sure if that has any bearing on his willingness to resign with the Sox now given he has much deeper roots and friendships among the current crew and Hanley is just one guy and an "outsider" in this situation, but could be an issue for him, who knows....

 

[Joe Shlabotnick]

A friend reminded me the other day that apparently Lester thinks Hanley is an ass, dating back to their days together in the Sox system (they were 2005 Portland Sea Dog teammates) - he recalled an interview from about 5 years ago when Lester admitted that he did not get along with him at all, and that he was the last person on the team he would be friends with - not sure if that has any bearing on his willingness to resign with the Sox now given he has much deeper roots and friendships among the current crew and Hanley is just one guy and an "outsider" in this situation, but could be an issue for him, who knows....

 
If the reason Lester doesn't sign with the Sox is his relationship with Hanley Ramirez, he never intended to sign here in the first place. 

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

A lot of people change over the course of 5 years. I am about the same age as HanRam, and I can tell you right now that looking back, I was an annoying asshole 5 years ago. I wouldn't be friends with myself back then, so I know first hand that life changes you a lot in 5 years, especially from the ages of 25 to 30, you grow up a lot. Not saying that Hanley has, but I don't think he's a deciding factor in Lester's decision.

 

[snowmanny]

And actually we are talking about more than 10 years. They were 19 and 20, I believe, when they played together in the minors.

 

[TheYaz67]

Not suggesting it would be determinative by any stretch of the imagination and agree that folks can/do change over time, just apparently Hanley made a very "bad first impression" and you know what they say about first impressions - frankly I think given Hanley's reputation around the league and the fact that the Sox have a bunch of veterans/he looks up to Papi means he will be on his best behavior, which would be different than the dynamic that existed when they were prospects and Hanley was pretty "high on himself"...

 

[Otis Foster]

Not suggesting it would be determinative by any stretch of the imagination and agree that folks can/do change over time, just apparently Hanley made a very "bad first impression" and you know what they say about first impressions - frankly I think given Hanley's reputation around the league and the fact that the Sox have a bunch of veterans/he looks up to Papi means he will be on his best behavior, which would be different than the dynamic that existed when they were prospects and Hanley was pretty "high on himself"...

+1

It's hard to see Papi tolerating much preening from Hanley.

 

[67WasBest]

Not suggesting it would be determinative by any stretch of the imagination and agree that folks can/do change over time, just apparently Hanley made a very "bad first impression" and you know what they say about first impressions - frankly I think given Hanley's reputation around the league and the fact that the Sox have a bunch of veterans/he looks up to Papi means he will be on his best behavior, which would be different than the dynamic that existed when they were prospects and Hanley was pretty "high on himself"...

Hanley mentioned how being around the vets on the Dodgers taught him how to be a pro.  One of the problems he had is he was dealt from the Sox sphere of influence while still a very young man.  He had few veterans he would have looked up to in Miami, and made some youthful mistakes.  Someone upthread noted, they wouldn't have liked themselves at 21, I feel the same way, hell I may still not like myself, but I'm much less prone to abject stupidity now.

 

[Carmen Fanzone]

Not exactly sure what changed - perhaps there's a mandate to make the playoffs next year - but clearly something did.
 

 
What they know, and we don't, is where ticket sales stand relative to past years, how many NESN advertisers failed to renew for another season, how suite sales/rentals look, how they are progressing in selling signage, etc, etc
 
Perhaps the effect of a second last-place finish in three years (despite a parade year in between) has taken a larger economic toll than we imagine, and they've realized how badly they need to put a contender on the field and on TV.

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

A friend reminded me the other day that apparently Lester thinks Hanley is an ass, dating back to their days together in the Sox system (they were 2005 Portland Sea Dog teammates) - he recalled an interview from about 5 years ago when Lester admitted that he did not get along with him at all, and that he was the last person on the team he would be friends with - not sure if that has any bearing on his willingness to resign with the Sox now given he has much deeper roots and friendships among the current crew and Hanley is just one guy and an "outsider" in this situation, but could be an issue for him, who knows....

 
Glass houses and all. Didn't Lester partake in the beer and fried chicken club? Not exactly a shining example of behavior by a guy who should have known better (and different than the cocky behavior of an uber-prospect in the minors). I agree, if Hanley really is a reason keeping Lester from returning, especially on a team with strong leadership like Ortiz and Napoli, that will say a lot more about Lester today than Hanley.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Lester and Hanley allegedly had issues 10 years ago., when Hanley was a kid, and people think this could be a negative for Lester wanting to come back to Boston? Not buying it

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  16m 16 minutes ago


The feeling is Yanks interest in Lester is purely to drive price up for Sox, but are legitimately interested in Scherzer #MLB
0 replies 0 retweets 1 favorite

 





Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  20m 20 minutes ago

Sources claiming Yankees will enter Max Scherzer race this weekend, and could enter Jon Lester race as well to drive price up for Sox/Cubs

 

[CaskNFappin]

Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  16m 16 minutes ago

The feeling is Yanks interest in Lester is purely to drive price up for Sox, but are legitimately interested in Scherzer #MLB0 replies 0 retweets 1 favorite

 

Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  20m 20 minutes ago
Sources claiming Yankees will enter Max Scherzer race this weekend, and could enter Jon Lester race as well to drive price up for Sox/Cubs

In other news, water is wet.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Hanley mentioned how being around the vets on the Dodgers taught him how to be a pro.  One of the problems he had is he was dealt from the Sox sphere of influence while still a very young man.  He had few veterans he would have looked up to in Miami, and made some youthful mistakes.  Someone upthread noted, they wouldn't have liked themselves at 21, I feel the same way, hell I may still not like myself, but I'm much less prone to abject stupidity now.

And he was playing for a team that almost explicitly didn't give a shit about winning baseball games, a team that every single player knew only existed for the owner to make big profit via revenue sharing from the league.  Yes, he behaved badly and selfishly at times but, in his defense, he was taking his cues from his team and owner.

 

[soxhop411]

seems like we will know where Lester is going by next Sunday, as reports are that he wants to sign before the winter meetings
 
https://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2014/11/farrell_red_sox_making_every_attempt_to_bring_back_jon

 

[mattymatty]

In theory I understand that the Yankees entering the Lester market should drive up Lester's price, but I'm not sure I grasp the nuts and bolts of that. If the Yankees are trying to drive the price up, walking in the door and saying "We're here!" won't be enough. They'll have to make an offer, and, I'd think, that offer would have to be at least competitive, i.e. if the Sox are offering 6/120 as reported the Yankees would have to submit a similar (or better) offer in which case they'd have to be prepared for Lester to take it. That's not a bluff, which is I guess where my confusion comes in. They may not be prepared to go 7/160 or whatever silliness this eventually gets to, but standing next to the table isn't going to cut it. The Yankees are going to have to play a hand to have any impact. I think we're well beyond the Red Sox front office seeing an N and Y, peeing their pants, and then calling up Lester's agent to offer $30 million more. Or am I missing something (note: this is quite possible)?

 

[glennhoffmania]

 



Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  16m 16 minutes ago


The feeling is Yanks interest in Lester is purely to drive price up for Sox, but are legitimately interested in Scherzer #MLB
0 replies 0 retweets 1 favorite

 





Dan Lifshatz @Dan_Lifshatz  ·  20m 20 minutes ago

Sources claiming Yankees will enter Max Scherzer race this weekend, and could enter Jon Lester race as well to drive price up for Sox/Cubs
 

 
I'm so confused.  All I keep hearing from the NY media and fans is that they won't be spending much this offseason.  So this can't be right.

 

[67WasBest]

 
I'm so confused.  All I keep hearing from the NY media and fans is that they won't be spending much this offseason.  So this can't be right.

Don't we hear that every offseason?  Last year it was "we want to go below the spending line, the McCann, Ells, etc, etc and the beat rolled on

 

[Heise3B]

There is no doubt in my mind Yanks will sign Scherzer. It will happen during the WM.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Doesn't Lester make more sense for the Yankees than Scherzer? LHP well-proven in the AL East, in the toilet, and cheaper...

 

[Darnell's Son]

Don't we hear that every offseason?  Last year it was "we want to go below the spending line, the McCann, Ells, etc, etc and the beat rolled on

Fix your sarcasm meter.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I'm so confused.  All I keep hearing from the NY media and fans is that they won't be spending much this offseason.  So this can't be right.

I think it is most likely rumor churn from agents, but who knows?

 

[snowmanny]

Even Cashman might not know.

 

[nattysez]

I think we're well beyond the Red Sox front office seeing an N and Y, peeing their pants, and then calling up Lester's agent to offer $30 million more. Or am I missing something (note: this is quite possible)?

While I don't think LL and Theo are going to bankrupt their teams over a personal vendetta, their sword-measuring is more likely to drive up Lester's final $ than the MFY getting involved.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Scherzer has only pitched 11.2 innings in Yankee Stadium since the end of 2011 (2 starts)? Nothing to go on there...16 hits, 10 walks and 5 ER (1 HR).
 
Lester, in the same time period, has 52 innings (8 starts), 49 hits, 16 walks and 16 ER. Only 4 HR surrendered. 
 
Lester seems to be a better bet for the Yankees. I don't buy the "driving the price up" crap. If they put in a bid for him, they'll want him.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

If the Yankees want to hold on to their first round pick AND spend big on free agents, I would expect them to target Lester over Scherzer.  I could see the Yankees signing Lester and Andrew Miller while gaining a pick for Robertson, which would put the Yankees in a pretty nice position in the draft.
 
While I would prefer seeing the Yankees sacrifice their first round pick by signing Scherzer, I would have no complaints if they signed Lester to a huge 7 year, 170 million deal, or something along those lines.  That would keep the Red Sox from overpaying on Lester -- and in a few years, the Yankees would have another dreadful contract on their hands.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

In theory I understand that the Yankees entering the Lester market should drive up Lester's price, but I'm not sure I grasp the nuts and bolts of that. If the Yankees are trying to drive the price up, walking in the door and saying "We're here!" won't be enough. They'll have to make an offer, and, I'd think, that offer would have to be at least competitive, i.e. if the Sox are offering 6/120 as reported the Yankees would have to submit a similar (or better) offer in which case they'd have to be prepared for Lester to take it. That's not a bluff, which is I guess where my confusion comes in.

I think what makes the Yankees scary here is that they have the resources to live with the results if a bluff is called, whereas they know what a PR disaster it would be for Ben if Lester ends up in NY. They can bid, say, 6/150 knowing that if Ben doesn't beat that, Lucchino and the Boston media will come after him with torches and pitchforks--but if he does beat it, he's stuck with a bigger contract than he intended. In short, NY can easily create a no-win situation for the Sox at a sustainable risk to themselves.

 

[Rice4HOF]

Doesn't driving the price up for Lester, end up driving Scherzer's price up too? So wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot? Or do they have that much money that they are happy that Boston has to pay Lester, say, an extra $10 Million, even though they'll end up paying Scherzer an extra $20 because of it?  Am I missing an important economics 101 lesson here?  Someone please enlighten me, because I don't get it. 

 

[OptimusPapi]

But if your Cherington wouldn't the pr hit be worth it, if you knew the Yanks will be paying 35 to 37 year old Lester 25 million dollars a year?

 

[OptimusPapi]

Doesn't driving the price up for Lester, end up driving Scherzer's price up too? So wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot? Or do they have that much money that they are happy that Boston has to pay Lester, say, an extra $10 Million, even though they'll end up paying Scherzer an extra $20 because of it?  Am I missing an important economics 101 lesson here?  Someone please enlighten me, because I don't get it. 

To stretch your comment a bit, if Lester is worth 24 to 25 million dollars for six or seven years, then how much is a pitcher like Zimmerman worth?

 

[phenweigh]

I don't believe any team enters negotiation with the sole intent of driving up the price for their rival.  Their primary purpose must be to sign a player that they want on their team.  At most, driving up the price for a rival is a consolation for losing a player.  Just because an idea is tweeted doesn't mean it's true.  I'd offer the typical tweet is more likely BS.  

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

PR hit is one thing. Spending 200mm in Panda and Hanley, and then having it all go for naught because you didn't sign Lester is a completely different, and more important, problem.

Surely they won't skimp on Lester over 5mm AAV when they just dropped 40mm AAV on two position players which, without pitching, are meaningless.

Losing out on Lester would almost force the Sox to pay the premium on a trade for an ace caliber pitcher (Hamels), which would likely mean adios, Betts.


That will not happen.

 

[lxt]

Should we be concerning ourselves with a hypothetical possibility that the Yankees will enter into the Lester FA fray. I doubt BC will make a decision based on what the Yankees may or may not be considering. Sure it would piss them and us off if the Yankees jumped in and snatched up Lester just like they did for Ellsbury but that's baseball. I for one will wait until I hear the Yankees have made an offer to Lester before I'll start worrying about it.
 
We may want to set up a thread/board/thingy specifically for our insane infatuation with what the Yankees may or may not do.

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

I don't believe any team enters negotiation with the sole intent of driving up the price for their rival.  Their primary purpose must be to sign a player that they want on their team.  At most, driving up the price for a rival is a consolation for losing a player.  Just because an idea is tweeted doesn't mean it's true.  I'd offer the typical tweet is more likely BS.  

Entering negotiations? Perhaps not. But showing interest, having some "offers" leak out that weren't accurate, etc? That's all part of the game.

You don't have to enter into real negotiations to drive up prices, particularly If you're the Yankees.

And any offer you actually do make could be for such a small AAV that nobody would take it.

Remember Crawford? The Yankees sat down and had dinner with his agents and all of the sudden the Sox got him for 30mm over the 2nd bidder. Lee? The Sox offered something like 8/100 so Lee's camp could sell an 8 year offer to his other suitors.

The Yanks could offer 12/150 or something silly that Lester would never take so they say 'we have a 150mm offer for Lester on the table' which would make the Sox react. Same thing If they offered 7/100.