Beyond Lester: Building a Rotation
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Short of getting Cueto or Sale, I can't think of anyone realistically that will get me that excited.soxhop411 said:
I think the likelihood of the Sox making a firm offer to Max Scherzer just went up, and I wonder what that offer would be.
Joel Sherman made the point after the announcement that it might impact how the Reds are viewing things. If it makes them more likely to deal one of their better pitchers, it might end up working out better this way.
Whatever happens, here's the mantra. Get the best you can without giving up the binkies, and let's get at 'em.
Joel Sherman made the point after the announcement that it might impact how the Reds are viewing things. If it makes them more likely to deal one of their better pitchers, it might end up working out better this way.
Whatever happens, here's the mantra. Get the best you can without giving up the binkies, and let's get at 'em.
Just to clarify, this is meant to be a looking at SP possibilities moving forward broadly speaking--thought it wise to have two different threads for different types of reactions to the Lester signing by Chicago.
This one, if not clear, should be more Red Sox focused and constructive than the Lester reaction thread.
Edit: It seems people have a firm handle on this while I got around to posting this. Good.
This one, if not clear, should be more Red Sox focused and constructive than the Lester reaction thread.
Edit: It seems people have a firm handle on this while I got around to posting this. Good.
I'd rather pay $ than top-tier prospects and I'd rather have Max than Cole, irrespective of that, but it's a lose/lose PR situation with Max. 135/6 probably is not enough, but if you offer him more than Lester, there's gonna be backlash.
Rasputin said:
I really don't think that's very likely... Scherzer is looking for a 200m contract. The Red Sox didn't go above 135m for Lester, why would they do it for Max?
Sure, they could probably value him more than Jon, but 60m more?
Besides, being a Boras client, this will probably drag until January or so... Sox can't afford to lose time now to fix the rotation.
Why would there be a backlash? He's younger and a better pitcher and Jon Lester is off the market.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
chawson said:
We don't need three pitchers and I don't think that's going to get Cueto, but other than that, yeah.
Sign Shields. We don't have to like him. We like the shirt he wears. Plus, I would laugh my ass off if he actually pitched brilliantly for us in the postseason.
I think #1 on the list is Hamels, but #2 is going to be Latos. I'm sure they'll enquire about Cueto, but the asking price may be too rich. Latos can probably be had for a deal built around Cespedes.
As many have said in other threads, now is not the time to panic and sell off the next generation of Sox in a knee jerk fashion. I don't think that's Cherrington's style anyways, but keeping Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, and Owens should be as high a priority as acquiring pitching.
As many have said in other threads, now is not the time to panic and sell off the next generation of Sox in a knee jerk fashion. I don't think that's Cherrington's style anyways, but keeping Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, and Owens should be as high a priority as acquiring pitching.
I agree with your second paragraph but not necessarily with your first. They might be mutually exclusive. Bastardo for Coyle to replace Miller, as rumored, is a start. Tryouts for their young pitchers for all 3 rotation openings is preferable to wasting resources on mediocrities in that knee jerk reaction. Theo left the Sox because his high acquisition costs for A Gonz and Crawford were a disaster.sodenj5 said:
Ben bravely made the Punto trade and fortuitously signed the short term veterans who won it all in 2013. Can he bravely and patiently stay the course with the graduates of his farm system? Populating the rotation with somewhat cost controlled but less famous pitchers such as Ross, Cashner or Hahn from San Diego makes more sense. Something more like the Rose, Pavano and Armas for Pedro trade will have a good history repeating itself vibe. Owens or Johnson or Rodriguez and Barnes or Ranaudo plus a lottery ticket for Cashner, Ross or Hahn is preferable IMO to wastefully throwing more money at a problem.
Today's Washington Post had 2 good articles on the subject of trades:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/12/09/could-justin-upton-ian-desmond-or-yoenis-cespedes-be-traded-sure-but-try-to-find-a-partner/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/12/10/after-being-jilted-by-free-agent-and-former-boston-starter-jon-lester-the-red-sox-regroup/
Another name rumored as available, Andrew Heaney with the Marlins, fits my "Pedro" criteria. Nobody they can possibly acquire will be the next Pedro but quality cost controlled pitchers, even if unproven, should be their prime targets.
Cueto, Fister and Porcello would round out a damn fine rotation and I can see all attainable without expending a major piece. Let them all walk after 2015 with QOs on all, then see where the kids are, and shop again next year.
Anyone calling for Mad Max is simply not paying attention. Not happening!
Anyone calling for Mad Max is simply not paying attention. Not happening!
How would Cueto not cost a major piece? Not being snarky, but what do you see his acquisition cost as?
Volume. Reds have 4 guys coming up on FA in their rotation. Give them the bat they want for this year (Cespedes) and arms to spread out their FA pain. The price tags of this FA shopping spree are likely scaring the crap out of them.bosockboy said:
For those worried that Ben and ownership's not going the extra mile on Lester's contract offer who are now worried that they will turn around and deal a top prospect/ young player, I think it bears explicitly stating that the FO's hallmark in dealing with Lester was restraint.
They had a value for Jon that they weren't willing to go beyond and I'm sure they have a similar valuation of the young guys. If they were going to behave rashly or histrionicly they would have offered Lester more money. I don't think there's any evidence that their discipline would break now.
They had a value for Jon that they weren't willing to go beyond and I'm sure they have a similar valuation of the young guys. If they were going to behave rashly or histrionicly they would have offered Lester more money. I don't think there's any evidence that their discipline would break now.
I would love Cueto but I think it costs more.67WasBest said:
My fear is a Clement-esque overreaction here. If they decide that the way to go is to deal a big prospect for Cueto, I can live with that. If they decide to go with a rotation of all 2's and 3's for a good price, I can live with that. But what I don't want is them to be lured into overpaying for someone not worth it in an effect to quickly placate an uneasy fan base. I don want Hamels given that contract and his career numbers vs THE AL.
OCD SS said:
Well said! They need to follow their rules now that the "exception" they were willing to make didn't occur.
My issue with this, as I've posted in other threads, is that I don't believe the Sox will ever have the patience to find out whether these young pitchers are then next generation, and I think the more likely scenario is that, for the younger guys, their value is at a peak now. We have so many young pitchers, and while none of them are likely #1 or even #2 starters, they all have the potential to have legitimate ML careers.sodenj5 said:
Between Owens, Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson, there should be something to work with there. A trade centered around 1 or 2 of those guys, coupled with Cespedes and a Marrero/Coyle/Cecchini type, could bring back something. My point is the currency the Sox have the most of at this time is prospects. Let's use some of them because I don't believe we will see them at Fenway.
Say that Boston somehow gets all 3. Why would you trade current top prospects just to let these players walk? You're essentially hoping that these new draft picks will be better than someone like a Swihart who is the best catcher in the minors. The Sox are not the Rays. If they give up top prospects for any of these pitchers they better have an extension worked out or the pitcher should have a few years of control.67WasBest said:
Bring on Hamels. Hell with this as long as Betts Swihart or Xander is not apart of the deal it should be a no brainer.
Because you are an infinitely better team with those three guys? I mean, say they win the WS next year around a rotation of Cueto, Fister, Porcello, Buchholz, and Kelly. Does that make it worth it? I am a prospect nut, but I believe we are all overvaluing them. They are currency.Tyrone Biggums said:
You're misunderstanding the point. I'm not against trading prospects for them but why empty the farm for one year and then not try to resign the players in the off season? The logic makes no senseMerkle's Boner said:
With Shields looking for 5 years and north of $100 million, I assume that he would out of consideration. So now looking at Masterson who wants a one year contract or McCarthy. Sale is not being traded now as the Pale Hose are adding pieces so if Hamels can be obtained without giving up either of the B lads or Swihart, do it.
Well they are well and truly painted into a corner now, with the FA market down to Scherzer (yeah right), Shields (5/100++ for age 33-37 years) and a dwindling number of dubious middle of the rotation options which wont come cheap either. I think we are down to Santana, Volquez, McCarthy, CYoung, Masterson and Harang here.
This (in addition to the OF glut) virtually compels the Sox to trade for a SP, which compulsion will increase the transaction cost. I expect the Sox are going to have to make a trade which hurts in order to fill out the rotation.
This (in addition to the OF glut) virtually compels the Sox to trade for a SP, which compulsion will increase the transaction cost. I expect the Sox are going to have to make a trade which hurts in order to fill out the rotation.
Merkle's Boner said:
Last season's losing gave Ben cover to trade Lester before he walked. Is he brave enough to do the same with yesterday's heroes, Napoli and Victorino (once both prove healthy enough to have value) along with Cespedes? Papi might not be in his walk year (more like year to year) but Panda is his heir apparent. Won't Hanley likely be better as the ultimate first base replacement (staying in the infield rather than converting to the unfamiliar outfield)? If they can fill out their rotation by swapping expiring contracts for either decent expiring contract pitchers or some of those cost controlled starters who are not household names, this might be their best strategy. If Panda's days at 3B are numbered (just like Papi's are at DH), maybe retaining Cecchini is a priority. Prospects plus expiring contracts for these journeymen of varying quality (i.e. Cespedes, Victorino and Napoli) for better pitchers with expiring contracts or better young cost controlled starters is the way to go IMO.
I've always felt that platooning Craig (until he proves healthy too or doesn't) with Nava in LF with Hanley at 1B will probably be better for their lineup. JBJ could be an excellent 4th outfielder in that scenario if he isn't traded. If he is retained and if he hits, he could retake CF to be defensively flanked by the amazing range of Betts and Castillo. This is potentially their best OF lineup. Patience and sometimes thinking outside the box could give them that competitive edge that money alone can't buy.
A defense with Betts, JBJ and Castillo in the OF, Vazquez and Swihart at C, and Panda, Bogaerts, Pedroia and Hanley around the infield could predictably make a pitching rotation made up mainly of the kinds of youngsters I would prefer much better.
Merkle's Boner said:
For one year. I am not interested in mortgaging the future for one year. I would much rather package second-tier prospects for the Porcellos and Leakes of this world than give up the top-5 types for a Cueto or a Fister.
Yes, the prospects are currency, but that doesn't mean the smart thing to do is to blow them on the baseball equivalent of a weekend in Vegas.
Lester has set the market and that has likely increased every top pitcher's acquisition cost via trade.
I'd have to assume Amaro would get Owens and a lesser prospect now if the Red Sox were serious, given the competition the Giants and Dodgers will bring.
They also have plenty of pieces to acquire Latos with as well. If they ate Cespedes salary to give the Reds relief, and added Johnson and Coyle to eventually replace Phillips, that should keep the Reds at status quo. They still have Stephenson waiting in the wings as well.
Hamels, Latos, Buchholz, Kelly, Webster is good enough for me.
I'd have to assume Amaro would get Owens and a lesser prospect now if the Red Sox were serious, given the competition the Giants and Dodgers will bring.
They also have plenty of pieces to acquire Latos with as well. If they ate Cespedes salary to give the Reds relief, and added Johnson and Coyle to eventually replace Phillips, that should keep the Reds at status quo. They still have Stephenson waiting in the wings as well.
Hamels, Latos, Buchholz, Kelly, Webster is good enough for me.
The "currency" of cash failed to land Lester. The "currency" of players -- prospects and otherwise -- is no more or less valuable, since the flip side of their cost-controlled-ness is that you dont know if they're going to be any good. The Sox obviously think that Bogaerts, Betts and Swihart are going to be good. In fact, the first two aren't really prospects in the Sox eyes -- they're major leaguers. So, barring something insane happening, I'm not really worried that any of those 3 will be part of any deal. Owens is a completely different story, since the Sox are looking for pitching.
Understanding it takes 2 to tango and that one of them is Ruben Amaro -- Hamels already is what Owens might, maybe, aspire to be some day. If the Sox say, "well give you Owens and other stuff we can talk about, but Betts, Bogaerts and Swihart are not part of any deal" and Amaro walks, then so be it. If Amaro insists on the number 1 prospect when the not-number 1 might be better than others' number 1 or might be a better fit for his team, then he's confirmed his Amaro-ness for all to see.
No one knows which prospects will pan out. But we know that it probably won't be *all* of them. That means that for some of them, trading them is the highest and best use they have for the Sox.
Understanding it takes 2 to tango and that one of them is Ruben Amaro -- Hamels already is what Owens might, maybe, aspire to be some day. If the Sox say, "well give you Owens and other stuff we can talk about, but Betts, Bogaerts and Swihart are not part of any deal" and Amaro walks, then so be it. If Amaro insists on the number 1 prospect when the not-number 1 might be better than others' number 1 or might be a better fit for his team, then he's confirmed his Amaro-ness for all to see.
No one knows which prospects will pan out. But we know that it probably won't be *all* of them. That means that for some of them, trading them is the highest and best use they have for the Sox.
KillerBs said:
We'll see....I have faith that Ben & Co. have a very solid plan B and C. If they were really painted into a corner, I think they would have coughed up enough more money to get Lester done....they obviously didn't.
I am taking that as a signal that they held their guns on what they valued Jon at, and that deals are obviously coming. As much as I love Lester, this COULD be a blessing in disguise, I am willing to wait until the dominoes fall to judge.
I agree with this sentiment and at $150m I was close enough to ambivalence that I'm not really upset that he went to the Cubs.soxhop411 said:
I think it's important here to remember that Marcus Semien was the most important player going back to Oakland in the Shark trade. Boegarts, Betts and Swihart shouldn't be in the conversation.joe dokes said:
If the Red Sox sign James Shields through his age 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 seasons at more than $100 million, they've effectively done what they wanted to avoid doing with Lester, which is have a pitcher in his mid-to-late 30's making $20m+ per season through the last few years of the contract. The only difference is Lester has proven he can win in Boston and can handle the responsibility of pitching in high pressure games.
If they signed James Shields at 5/100+ I think Sox fans would have a legitimate reason to be livid that the Sox let Lester go to Chicago. You're (arguably) downgrading at the position to basically not have to pay for the next two years of Lester, which is exactly when you would want to pay to have Lester on the team. The big difference between Shields and Lester in the event that they're both an overpay is that with Lester, while the contract is longer, it's longer because you're still getting what should be a couple of prime years at the beginning of the deal. It's much less likely that you're going to get that with a 33 and 34 year old James Shields who's done nothing to prove he can pitch comparably to Lester in Boston.
I'm not saying they should have signed Lester, but what I am saying is if they respond to losing Lester by signing Shields to $100m+ (which is just SoSH speculation at this point), they're setting themselves up for the same problem down the road that they wanted to avoid by signing Lester to a long term deal in the first place. The AAV will be a bit less, but the numbers would still reflect an overpay and I'm not nearly as confident in James Shields over the next five years as I am John Lester over the next six or seven.
With that said, if they signed Shields for 3/54 and traded for Cueto (without losing Betts, X, or Swihart) and signed him to an extension, I think they've done a great job responding to the loss of Lester. Just please do not sign Shields to anything more than three years or with the thought that he's your new #1.
Edit: Clarity
If they signed James Shields at 5/100+ I think Sox fans would have a legitimate reason to be livid that the Sox let Lester go to Chicago. You're (arguably) downgrading at the position to basically not have to pay for the next two years of Lester, which is exactly when you would want to pay to have Lester on the team. The big difference between Shields and Lester in the event that they're both an overpay is that with Lester, while the contract is longer, it's longer because you're still getting what should be a couple of prime years at the beginning of the deal. It's much less likely that you're going to get that with a 33 and 34 year old James Shields who's done nothing to prove he can pitch comparably to Lester in Boston.
I'm not saying they should have signed Lester, but what I am saying is if they respond to losing Lester by signing Shields to $100m+ (which is just SoSH speculation at this point), they're setting themselves up for the same problem down the road that they wanted to avoid by signing Lester to a long term deal in the first place. The AAV will be a bit less, but the numbers would still reflect an overpay and I'm not nearly as confident in James Shields over the next five years as I am John Lester over the next six or seven.
With that said, if they signed Shields for 3/54 and traded for Cueto (without losing Betts, X, or Swihart) and signed him to an extension, I think they've done a great job responding to the loss of Lester. Just please do not sign Shields to anything more than three years or with the thought that he's your new #1.
Edit: Clarity
I doubt the Sox go far in talks with Scherzer. Boras is pretty good. If Lester can get 6 + an option, Scherzer can/will get 7. If Lester can get >$25M per year, Max can get >$26. So that's a 7/$182M+ kind of deal. Do people really see Ben giving Max Scherzer the largest deal in team history? I don't.
And others will bid to that level. SF was willing to go to $168M for Lester - more for our guy than the Sox would go. Others will value Scherzer more than the Sox.
Shields will also be problematic. I agree that he'll likely top out at 5 years but that his annual amount will be north of $20M. 5/$110M is more likely the target. I think that deal could be bad from the start. So...
They're going to need to trade for their #1 SP acquisition. I suspect others are right - they won't deal Betts/X/Swihart. So it will be a 4-for-1 kind of deal. My fear is that that will only be good enough to get a guy like Latos or Cashner, not a proven "ace" like Cueto. If you're the Reds, and believe you have to convert some of your one year assets into longer term value, why give up your best SP unless you're getting big upside in return? I don't think Cespedes is high enough quality. The Reds can get quantity by trading Latos and/or Leake, keep Cueto, get their stars back healthy, and make a run this year. So while I'd love to get Cueto and extend him, I don't think it will happen. Unless...
They can trade Cespedes and a good prospect for a Betts-type and use that player as the key piece in a trade for a top SP. I doubt that can happen, but it's possible. Getting this creative is where Ben's going to need to earn his pay.
And others will bid to that level. SF was willing to go to $168M for Lester - more for our guy than the Sox would go. Others will value Scherzer more than the Sox.
Shields will also be problematic. I agree that he'll likely top out at 5 years but that his annual amount will be north of $20M. 5/$110M is more likely the target. I think that deal could be bad from the start. So...
They're going to need to trade for their #1 SP acquisition. I suspect others are right - they won't deal Betts/X/Swihart. So it will be a 4-for-1 kind of deal. My fear is that that will only be good enough to get a guy like Latos or Cashner, not a proven "ace" like Cueto. If you're the Reds, and believe you have to convert some of your one year assets into longer term value, why give up your best SP unless you're getting big upside in return? I don't think Cespedes is high enough quality. The Reds can get quantity by trading Latos and/or Leake, keep Cueto, get their stars back healthy, and make a run this year. So while I'd love to get Cueto and extend him, I don't think it will happen. Unless...
They can trade Cespedes and a good prospect for a Betts-type and use that player as the key piece in a trade for a top SP. I doubt that can happen, but it's possible. Getting this creative is where Ben's going to need to earn his pay.
As others have mentioned. Yes he would have been a number 2 starter in SF and LA. I think the 6/135 offer from Boston means they see the same thing. He's good not great. He's good enough to be a #1 at times and mediocre enough to be a #4 at others. His typical performance is more in line with a #2 starter in my book. Is he good enough to lead a staff? Yes. Good enough for a 7/170? Not even close.swingin val said:
Lester vs. Shields vs. Scherzer vs. Cueto vs. Hamels (just for fun)
Lester
2013 (29) - 213.1 ip, 3.75 era, 3.59 fip, 110 era+, 1.29 whip, 7.5 k/9, 3.0 bWAR
2014 (30) - 219.2 ip, 2.46 era, 2.80 fip, 155 era+, 1.10 whip, 9.0 k/9, 4.6 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 14 g, 84.0 ip, 2.57 era, 1.07 whip, 7.8 k/9
Shields
2013 (31) - 228.2 ip, 3.15 era, 3.47 fip, 131 era+, 1.23 whip, 7.7 k/9, 4.1 bWAR
2014 (32) - 227.0 ip, 3.21 era, 3.59 fip, 124 era+, 1.18 whip, 7.1 k/9, 3.3 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 11 g, 59.1 ip, 5.46 era, 1.53 whip, 6.8 k/9
Scherzer
2013 (28) - 214.1 ip, 2.90 era, 2.74 fip, 144 era+, 0.97 whip, 10.1 k/9, 6.7 bWAR
2014 (29) - 220.1 ip, 3.15 era, 2.85 fip, 127 era+, 1.18 whip, 10.3 k/9, 6.0 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 12 g, 62.2 ip, 3.73 era, 1.13 whip, 11.5 k/9
Cueto
2013 (27) - 60.2 ip, 2.82 era, 3.81 fip, 135 era+, 1.06 whip, 7.6 k/9, 1.4 bWAR (obviously injured; 217 ip, 2.78 era in 2012)
2014 (28) - 243.2 ip, 2.25 era, 3.30 fip, 160 era+, 0.96 whip, 8.9 k/9, 6.4 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 3 g, 8.2 ip, 5.19 era, 1.73 whip, 3.1 k/9
Hamels
2013 (29) - 220.0 ip, 3.60 era, 3.26 fip, 104 era+, 1.16 whip, 8.3 k/9, 4.6 bWAR
2014 (30) - 204.2 ip, 2.46 era, 3.07 fip, 151 era+, 1.15 whip, 8.7 k/9, 6.6 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 13 g, 81.2 ip, 3.09 era, 1.05 whip, 8.5 k/9
Lester now has a 6/155 contract with a vesting option for a 7th season. Scherzer will likely command a 7/175 contract at a minimum. As well he should. He's terrific in the postseason, and he's much better than Lester during the regular season. And he's a year younger. Shields is older and has a shaky postseason resume. But during the regular season, he's terrific. You would not have any problem having Shields anchoring your staff. He helped KC get to the WS. But he certainly will cost less than what Lester just got. And Cueto? Youngest of the group, also has a very impressive regular season resume. One year left on his contract, can only be had via trade. Which would likely cost a lot - and then you have to extend him or go through the entire Lester saga all over again. Hamels is the steadiest of the group. Struggles vs. the AL East, but is a terrific pitcher. He'd cost a lot to acquire, but you wouldn't have to extend him, as he's suddenly on a very fair market value contract through 2019 (team option for 2019).
EDIT: Thanks to Merkle for reminding me about Hamels; so I added him in here.
Lester
2013 (29) - 213.1 ip, 3.75 era, 3.59 fip, 110 era+, 1.29 whip, 7.5 k/9, 3.0 bWAR
2014 (30) - 219.2 ip, 2.46 era, 2.80 fip, 155 era+, 1.10 whip, 9.0 k/9, 4.6 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 14 g, 84.0 ip, 2.57 era, 1.07 whip, 7.8 k/9
Shields
2013 (31) - 228.2 ip, 3.15 era, 3.47 fip, 131 era+, 1.23 whip, 7.7 k/9, 4.1 bWAR
2014 (32) - 227.0 ip, 3.21 era, 3.59 fip, 124 era+, 1.18 whip, 7.1 k/9, 3.3 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 11 g, 59.1 ip, 5.46 era, 1.53 whip, 6.8 k/9
Scherzer
2013 (28) - 214.1 ip, 2.90 era, 2.74 fip, 144 era+, 0.97 whip, 10.1 k/9, 6.7 bWAR
2014 (29) - 220.1 ip, 3.15 era, 2.85 fip, 127 era+, 1.18 whip, 10.3 k/9, 6.0 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 12 g, 62.2 ip, 3.73 era, 1.13 whip, 11.5 k/9
Cueto
2013 (27) - 60.2 ip, 2.82 era, 3.81 fip, 135 era+, 1.06 whip, 7.6 k/9, 1.4 bWAR (obviously injured; 217 ip, 2.78 era in 2012)
2014 (28) - 243.2 ip, 2.25 era, 3.30 fip, 160 era+, 0.96 whip, 8.9 k/9, 6.4 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 3 g, 8.2 ip, 5.19 era, 1.73 whip, 3.1 k/9
Hamels
2013 (29) - 220.0 ip, 3.60 era, 3.26 fip, 104 era+, 1.16 whip, 8.3 k/9, 4.6 bWAR
2014 (30) - 204.2 ip, 2.46 era, 3.07 fip, 151 era+, 1.15 whip, 8.7 k/9, 6.6 bWAR
CAREER POSTSEASON: 13 g, 81.2 ip, 3.09 era, 1.05 whip, 8.5 k/9
Lester now has a 6/155 contract with a vesting option for a 7th season. Scherzer will likely command a 7/175 contract at a minimum. As well he should. He's terrific in the postseason, and he's much better than Lester during the regular season. And he's a year younger. Shields is older and has a shaky postseason resume. But during the regular season, he's terrific. You would not have any problem having Shields anchoring your staff. He helped KC get to the WS. But he certainly will cost less than what Lester just got. And Cueto? Youngest of the group, also has a very impressive regular season resume. One year left on his contract, can only be had via trade. Which would likely cost a lot - and then you have to extend him or go through the entire Lester saga all over again. Hamels is the steadiest of the group. Struggles vs. the AL East, but is a terrific pitcher. He'd cost a lot to acquire, but you wouldn't have to extend him, as he's suddenly on a very fair market value contract through 2019 (team option for 2019).
EDIT: Thanks to Merkle for reminding me about Hamels; so I added him in here.
I really don't get why there isn't more love for Cole Hamels. If I'm trading some significant pieces, I want the guy I get to be around for awhile. Hamels will be through 2019 at a similar salary as Lester. The guy has produced 27.8 WAR over the past five seasons, is a proven horse in the postseason, is coming off an amazing year with a 151 ERA+. a 6.6 WAR and a K/9 of 8.7.
Sure it's going to cost you, but you are dealing with Amaro, and there is no way Hamels should be a Phillie next year. Based on what Shark got, I start with Owens, Cespedes, and either Coyle (a local kid), or Cecchini, or Holt if he wants someone more ML-ready.
Sure it's going to cost you, but you are dealing with Amaro, and there is no way Hamels should be a Phillie next year. Based on what Shark got, I start with Owens, Cespedes, and either Coyle (a local kid), or Cecchini, or Holt if he wants someone more ML-ready.
Merkle's Boner said:
I think there is plenty of love on this board for Cole Hamels. His talent and production is never the question. I think general consensus is more cool on him around here because he has a market rate contract and the acquisition cost appears to be prohibitively high. Giving up the cream of the crop of the Red Sox farm system for the right to pay Hamels a market rate contract for 5 years seems to be a bad use of resources.
I think what Lester's deal just told us is that Hamels is NOT on a market rate contract. 4/$90 or 5/$110 (w/the option) is closer to what Shields will get than what Lester got. Hamels' deal is short both on years and on money. If he were an FA right now, he'd get, like Lester, 6 years at $25M+ per season.
Minneapolis Millers said:
It will most certainly be at least 5/$110 mil ($22m per year) for the Red Sox, which is only $500K per year lower than the Red Sox just deemed appropriate value for Lester. In their minds, this is clearly market rate. Giving up valuable, cost controlled, resources to save 1 year of commitment and roughly $3 mil per year in cash outlay seems crazy given their recent behavior. Considering the restraint the Sox just showed with the Lester negotiation, I think its a fairly safe assumption that they feel the same way.
I'm coming around to the notion of going for second-tier guys, solid No. 2 or 3 types. Shields seems like a lesser version of good Lackey, while Hamels (even though the contract is favorable) will likely cost a piece in trade that the Sox would regret giving away.
The Miley, Latos, Ross, McCarthy types should certainly be enough to hold the fort while things shake out in a weaker AL East until the trade deadline, when a Cueto or other FA2B could become available at a lesser price.
The biggest risk, it seems to me, would be to make a reactionary move and overpay a Shields or trade away a Betts or Swihart just because they lost out on Lester
The Miley, Latos, Ross, McCarthy types should certainly be enough to hold the fort while things shake out in a weaker AL East until the trade deadline, when a Cueto or other FA2B could become available at a lesser price.
The biggest risk, it seems to me, would be to make a reactionary move and overpay a Shields or trade away a Betts or Swihart just because they lost out on Lester
H78 said:
The Lester situation has given me a lot of confidence in this front office. I was concerned that they would drastically overpay, but they stuck to their valuation. They showed discipline. They knew the chances of bringing him back with their offer, knowing that there was likely seven years out there. They will not panic now that the Lester negotiations are over.
I have a hard time even entertaining the thought that they would go 5/100 on Shields. If they wanted to buy any pitchers 36 and 37 year old seasons, they would have bought Jon's.
Going forward, I'm sure they kick the tires on Hamels, but Amaro seems to have very unique valuations of his players. It is pretty clear to the world that we will be trading Cespedes, and considering that the names Porcello and Kennedy have been thrown around, we are likely to acquire one pitcher via Cespedes plus. I'd prefer we add in a bit more and target a pitcher the caliber of Latos or Cashner.
But we are definitely going to have to acquire at least one pitcher via free agency. The pitcher that intrigues me the most is Ervin Santana. He has posted consecutive 3 WAR seasons and his FIP generally supports the top line number. He will be 32 next year, so he is no spring chicken. Last year, he was looking for 6/100. This year there are rumblings he may be looking for a five year deal in the 75 M range. The market wasn't there last year, so I have a hard time imagining that is going to find it this year. He has draft pick compensation attached, which reduces his value. And, I'd imagine he wants to sign a longer term deal before next years FA class. For this to make sense for the Sox (not buying pitchers age 35+ seasons) it would have to be a three year deal. The QO number this year is 15.3. Any chance 3/48-50 gets it done?
Fangraphs also did a write up on him a couple of weeks back: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/can-ervin-santana-do-better-this-time-around/
E5 Yaz said:
This depends on what you mean by good Lackey. If you're referring to his 2005-07 Angels peak, then yes, a lesser version is exactly what Shields is. But if you're referring to his post-surgery 2013 and 2014 edition, Shields is better than that.
burstnbloom said:
No, I honestly think you have it backwards. I think the Lester negotiations showed the sox that they cannot (or will not) pay what market rate actually is, thus they need to target commodities like Hamels because he comes at approximately the rate they want to pay. If they can secure that with an Owens, Marrero, Cechhini package, they will do it. If he costs Betts, Owens, Marrero, hold off.
Especially (for me) since they only went to $22.5 million/year. The Cubs went higher, and a better pitcher (Scherzer) will ask for and likely get more. But, then, the Sox have something to keep the price down if they try to re-up a guy they acquire. Say it's Latos. If they care to, they can offer to extend him at $18 million/year. Tell him the history with Lester made his offer higher, but they want to create a similar history with Latos. Latos has been hurt in the last, so he may be averse to risking it for free agency.PrometheusWakefield said:
I don't know that the Sox want to do that -- it seems like last Spring with Lester -- but they still may be able to pull it off. A roughly comparable, younger pitcher for $5 million less, can turn this into something good. Then, even if they fall short this coming season, if they establish themselves as a contender, someone like Iwakuma might choose Boston, since he's nearing the end.