Extending Lester

[maxotaur]

BTW - for all of those touting our farm. Be aware top 10 pitching prospects have a 26.5% chance of "superior" ML status. That is obviously somewhat ambiguous if only in the sense between a 1st to 3rd starter.

There is an almost 40% chance a top ten prospect stays in the league for a few years.

We are talking top 10 in all teams (not just the Sox). Without plugging in spreadsheets we have a 12-18% chance of replacing Lester in our current farm.

Stay tuned for much annoyance turned apathy.

Don't even get me started on our hitting. Consider 1/3 of the current will stay for any ML length. Again ambiguous - Greg Jeffries #1 prospect of the 80 ' s had 2 good years with St. Louis. He did batting practice in the backyard pool btw.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

 
Maybe it will simplify it... maybe Lester will fire them, purge their poisonous advice and negotiate his own team friendly deal...

Maybe.

Or perhaps their lawyers will handle it and they will continue with business as usual until it is worked out. There is an assumption here that it is entirely his agents that are complicating things.

 

[Manramsclan]

 
I think this is a very strange combinaton of completely dead on balls accurate and so far wrong it's in another galaxy.
 
I think they wanted to wait until the break to see if Lester's second half of 2013 was the new normal or whether it was just normal variance. Now that his last 220 or so innings going back to last July are with a sub 3.00 ERA, I think they're convinced that he's not the guy from 2012 and the first half of 2013 with an ERA well above four.
 

 
Yep, your explanation makes much more sense. If so, however, what a gross miscalculation on their part. Now that he has proven that this is the new normal, why would he sign for less than market value?

 

[Rasputin]

 
Yep, your explanation makes much more sense. If so, however, what a gross miscalculation on their part. Now that he has proven that this is the new normal, why would he sign for less than market value?

 
For the same reason he was willing to earlier--he likes it here and wants to stay.
 
Even if they aren't able to get him at a discount, it wasn't necessarily a miscalculation. It depends on what the priority is. If, as seems fairly likely, the priority is to avoid high dollar long term commitments to players who are underperforming, it wasn't a miscalculation so much as it was the cost of doing business. The only long term contract they have signed since the Punto trade is Pedroia and he took a deep enough discount that he's worth the money even if all he provides is gold glove caliber defense and slightly above average offense. 
 
I'm sure they want Lester to stay but they couldn't afford to pay top flight money to someone putting up an ERA of four and a half. They offered what they thought they could afford to pay for that, probably knowing that waiting would cost them a lot of money. It's just that they are more willing to pay 7/140 to someone they are convinced will be a pretty damn good pitcher than they are to pay 5/100 to someone who doesn't inspire such confidence.
 
I rather suspect that as soon as Bradley, Bogaerts, Workman, and DLR inspire such confidence, they will be offered contracts that buy out their arb years and a year or two of free agency at rates that will ensure that the payroll doesn't get high enough that Lester is going to be an albatross even if he doesn't quite live up to what he's being paid.

 

[Rasputin]

I am beginning to not trust current management. Actually not beginning - since before the season began if you consider the actions (and huge inactions - I've no idea how so many were so sold on this team actually even being competitive, in a post-season sense anyway - not to mention those on the game boards who think they still can be). 

 
Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Ras. The management that you are not trusting is the one that brought us the only World Series titles we have won in damn near a century. They have earned a certain degree of trust.
 

Unfortunately I must get into the entire bridge year idea before discussing Lester. 2013 was supposed to be that year, no?
 

 
No. Probably not in the manner you think, and almost certainly not in a way that would suggest the bridging would be done at the end of it.
 

So the logic follows that this 2014 team is some semblance of what that plan was. And, again - yes I conceed that had we not won big last year there would likely have been an altered approach to '14. To be completely accurate there were (a few) changes made in last year's approach before the deadline. But would having Iggy on the roster (or as a chip) instead of Peavy really have improved this year?
 

 
Yes, this team is some semblance of what that plan was, and that plan was to incorporate two rookies plus Will Middlebrooks into the lineup and probably one or more rookies into the rotation. If you were projecting this out in your five year plan, this would be a year that had rather large error bars.
 

If Lester is not signed by the end of the break ownership is giving us a giant finger up. 
 

 
 
This is absurdist alarmist claptrap and if I knew you better I'd likely tell you you're better than this.
 
Management doesn't owe it to you to sign the best players. They owe it to you to put th best damn team on the field that they can for as long as they can and then to make rebuilding as short as they can.
 
If Lester decides to go somewhere else--which I think is unlikely--management may break the bank for Scherzer. I tend to doubt it, but it's possible. Perhaps more to the point, if we go into 2015 with a rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, Doubront, Workman, and de la Rosa, you don't know that's not going to be a competitive team. It's a team that will still have good depth at AAA, and combined with a good bullpen and an improved offense, it absolutely can be competitive. Of course it's not guaranteed, you don't get guarantees, but Workman has proven himself to be a pretty good pitcher. So has de la Rosa. Will they face some bumps in the road as they transition to the majors? I'm fairly certain that they will. 
 

 If not I can always try to root for the A's. They are starting to appear to me as having not just better management - but more caring. It's the last part that truly irks me. 
 

 
You're acting like a child. Baseball is a business. If the Red Sox fail to sign your binky it's not because they don't care about winning--which, incidentally, is the only thing they should really care about--it's because the team and the player have different views on how much he's going to be worth going forward. 

 

[twibnotes]

 
The time to get a big discount was before the season started.  Now, they are going to have to pay at or above market value to keep him.

Not sure we will ever know, but if the Sox lose Lester, I wonder if it will be bc:

a) their walkway offer was just way too low and never going to suffice

or

b) they led with a borderline insulting offer and/or did not get to their walkway fast enough

I can live with option A. If the Sox believe strongly that Lester is only worth X and feel like exceeding that number is a bad long-term decision, I understand that. Some posters will point to other contracts, but many of those contracts may be bad deals. Avoiding long-term deals for 30+ yr olds may be, for want of a better label, the new Moneyball.

If it's option B above, that's a bad job. If they are really willing to go to an AAV around 20, and they led with the lowball offer that was rumored, that's a huge misplay. The negotiation is over if he becomes a FA so there should have been more urgency if (b) is what happened here

 

[maxotaur]

 
Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Ras. The management that you are not trusting is the one that brought us the only World Series titles we have won in damn near a century. They have earned a certain degree of trust.
 
 
No. Probably not in the manner you think, and almost certainly not in a way that would suggest the bridging would be done at the end of it.
 
 
Yes, this team is some semblance of what that plan was, and that plan was to incorporate two rookies plus Will Middlebrooks into the lineup and probably one or more rookies into the rotation. If you were projecting this out in your five year plan, this would be a year that had rather large error bars.
 
 
 
This is absurdist alarmist claptrap and if I knew you better I'd likely tell you you're better than this.
 
Management doesn't owe it to you to sign the best players. They owe it to you to put th best damn team on the field that they can for as long as they can and then to make rebuilding as short as they can.
 
If Lester decides to go somewhere else--which I think is unlikely--management may break the bank for Scherzer. I tend to doubt it, but it's possible. Perhaps more to the point, if we go into 2015 with a rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, Doubront, Workman, and de la Rosa, you don't know that's not going to be a competitive team. It's a team that will still have good depth at AAA, and combined with a good bullpen and an improved offense, it absolutely can be competitive. Of course it's not guaranteed, you don't get guarantees, but Workman has proven himself to be a pretty good pitcher. So has de la Rosa. Will they face some bumps in the road as they transition to the majors? I'm fairly certain that they will. 
 
 
You're acting like a child. Baseball is a business. If the Red Sox fail to sign your binky it's not because they don't care about winning--which, incidentally, is the only thing they should really care about--it's because the team and the player have different views on how much he's going to be worth going forward. 

Hi Ras. Thanks for the introduction. I'm Max.

Rasputin: You're acting like a child. Baseball is a business. If the Red Sox fail to sign your binky it's not because they don't care about winning--which, incidentally, is the only thing they should really care about--it's because the team and the player have different views on how much he's going to be worth going forward.

Max: For the 2nd time I'm much older than your stated age of 5. Please forgive me (been drinking quite a lot - too much) but I think your counter-point ignores all of the evidence of Lester being the about the best pitcher the Sox have had since Pedro (prove me wrong with stats). Go ahead...

Rasputin: I rather suspect that as soon as Bradley, Bogaerts, Workman, and DLR inspire such confidence

Max: Did you ignore my other post about the sorry prospects of prospects?

Rasputin: If Lester decides to go somewhere else--which I think is unlikely--management may break the bank for Scherzer. I tend to doubt it, but it's possible

Max: It's almost unbelievable, but our homegrown hero owns a better winning percentage than Scherzer, Verlander, Price, Lee, Gonzalez, Wilson, Hernandez, Greinke, and all but 6 other studs out there. Can I ask you how much you believe the freaky eyed Detroit pitcher is going to get on the open market? I think you might say $150, no?

Rasputin: You're acting like a child. Baseball is a business. If the Red Sox fail to sign your binky it's not because they don't care about winning

Max: Your gonna think me an asshole here. I have to admit I grew up a Mets fan. Die-hard until 4 years of Bobby F'ing Valentine. Just couldn't stand another moment. Actually wrote to then Mets GM Steve Phillips and received a reply. I could put it up on ebay...but I still wanna keep it. But was lucky to have spent my summers in Maine and Mass as a kid.. And one night, living in Manhattan I saw Pedro and the Sox in game 7 of 2003 and although they lost I was hooked. Talk about feeling LUCKY, I got a new team. Still got to hate the MFY's and was out of the NL at once - and rewarded some few months later.

Ras: The management that you are not trusting is the one that brought us the only World Series titles we have won in damn near a century. They have earned a certain degree of trust.

Max: So yes, I watched 86 from the other side. I got to enjoy that. Again - you might think me an asshole here. But the reason I'm bringing this up is your above statement. Do you really think that the current administration is the only one that cared about bring titles? 86 could have easily been the Sox. Do I need to tell you how many years they should have won? My point is again - I felt LUCKY in 04. And to some extent in '07. And very LUCKY last year. Unbelievably so. So how many years SHOULD have been won? (I would argue many).

Do you really think the past administrations were somehow inept?

My point: do you not think the current 2014 Triple-A roster and Lester's remaining unsigned, and reportedly, unhappy about that might not have something to do with the same Billionaire that brought us Bobby V?

 

[Average Reds]

So do you really think the past administrations were somehow inept?

Is this a serious question?

More to the point, do you not recognize that this ownership group is head and shoulders above any other Red Sox ownership group in our lifetimes?

 

[maxotaur]

Is this a serious question?

More to the point, do you not recognize that this ownership group is head and shoulders above any other Red Sox ownership group in our lifetimes?

I cannot provide an educated response to "our lifetimes". Sorry. Its true I was elsewhere.

And Ben is obviously great.

But other than that - yes its a serious question.

Another serious question - what year do you honestly think we will compete to win the division?

 

[Toe Nash]

The ownership can do an overall good job and still get a lot of things wrong. Maxotaur makes some good points so I don't see the point of appealing to authority here.

 

[Average Reds]

The ownership can do an overall good job and still get a lot of things wrong. Maxotaur makes some good points so I don't see the point of appealing to authority here.

 
I have no idea what you are talking about, since I did not question the other points he was making.
 
He asked if we thought past administrations were inept.  The answer to that is a thunderous yes.

 

[maxotaur]

The ownership can do an overall good job and still get a lot of things wrong. Maxotaur makes some good points so I don't see the point of appealing to authority here.

Thank you Toe. Obviously Rasputin has great points also. Glad a voice of reason can show up.

 

[Average Reds]

I cannot provide an educated response to "our lifetimes". Sorry. Its true I was elsewhere.

And Ben is obviously great.

But other than that - yes its a serious question.

Another serious question - what year do you honestly think we will compete to win the division?

 
Tom Yawkey, Jean Yawkey and the Yawkey Trust owned the team from 1933 until the sale to this ownership group after the 2001 season.  For any number of reasons, it's not hard to conclude that the current ownership group has a much better handle on things than the previous ownership group and (with the possible exception of Duquette) the inept stooges they had running the team for them.
 
This does not mean that they are infallible.  But to imply that 2004, 2007 and 2013 were basically just luck is ridiculous - we've had a run of sustained excellence that is unlike anything I've experienced as a Red Sox fan since the late 60s.
 
We've also had some clunkers.  The finish to 2011 was painful and 2012 was just awful.  This year is setting up to be painful as well.  Criticism is not only fair, it's warranted.  But I don't expect it to be a long term issue and I have a lot of confidence that the team will be compete for the division next year.

 

[Toe Nash]

I was responding to this whole thread of argument and largely to Rasputin. The current ownership group is the best we have had, on balance. But that does not make them immune from criticism or mistakes. Older groups made mistakes, but got a lot of things right as well, and came a coinflip away from winning everything on multiple occasions.

 

[dcmissle]

I cannot provide an educated response to "our lifetimes". Sorry. Its true I was elsewhere.

And Ben is obviously great.

But other than that - yes its a serious question.

Another serious question - what year do you honestly think we will compete to win the division?

I have no reason to believe Ben isn't calling the shits on this one. The signature Board Chairman/President-CEO move here is to hand over an almost blank check, for commercial reasons as well as competitive ones.

They will be competitive when they can marry hitting that is not historically inept to the pitching they already have.

Doing that requires re-upping Lester in my estimation. You brought value laying out that gauntlet of percentages with respect to fining anything resembling a replacement -- as opposed to a successor -- among the crop of young people. You have preemptively gutted, "well it was reasonable at the time cause they had x, y and z.

 

[RedOctober3829]

If anyone is ignorant enough to believe that they can win without an established starter such as Lester, then I can't help you. If they botch this up and Lester goes elsewhere, it will be their biggest mistake. If you think Ellsbury going to the Yankees stung a bit, Lester going there will be worse and the impact will be tenfold on both sides.

 

[bankshot1]

If anyone is ignorant enough to believe that they can win without an established starter such as Lester, then I can't help you. If they botch this up and Lester goes elsewhere, it will be their biggest mistake. If you think Ellsbury going to the Yankees stung a bit, Lester going there will be worse and the impact will be tenfold on both sides.

 
If Lester is lost to FA, then another #1-2 should be found, either within the organization or through FA, to remain as competitive. It seems to me the easiest path to a #1-2, (and a  much-coveted LHer #1-2) is to re-sign Lester. He's pretty much a known commodity, and there's not much of a learning curve for him to climb. Maybe some moving costs if he buys a bigger farm, 
 
As posted months ago, the MFY will be all over Lester in FA. From Whitey, to Gator, to Andy to CC, pennants run through the left-handed arms that hurl in the Urinal.
And with CC's future cloudier by the day, the need for the next south paw in the Bronx seems clear.
 
And i will be pissed if Lester pitches for the MFY, because the smartest guys in the room outsmarted everyone with their brilliant opening offer of 4/70.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I have no reason to believe Ben isn't calling the shits on this one.

I certainly hope not.

 

[maxotaur]

If anyone is ignorant enough to believe that they can win without an established starter such as Lester, then I can't help you. If they botch this up and Lester goes elsewhere, it will be their biggest mistake. If you think Ellsbury going to the Yankees stung a bit, Lester going there will be worse and the impact will be tenfold on both sides.

You stated my point in much more sober fashion. This is everything.

If they think that they're beyond talking to.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I certainly hope not.

He'll be shitting bricks if Lester lands in the Bronx or any other AL contender. Tanaka-Lester-Sabathia is a heck of a top 3.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

He'll be shitting bricks if Lester lands in the Bronx or any other AL contender. Tanaka-Lester-Sabathia is a heck of a top 3.

Agree 100%. The Sox have had Lester at a discount for his entire career. Its time to pony up.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Not sure we will ever know, but if the Sox lose Lester, I wonder if it will be bc:

a) their walkway offer was just way too low and never going to suffice

or

b) they led with a borderline insulting offer and/or did not get to their walkway fast enough

I can live with option A. If the Sox believe strongly that Lester is only worth X and feel like exceeding that number is a bad long-term decision, I understand that. Some posters will point to other contracts, but many of those contracts may be bad deals. Avoiding long-term deals for 30+ yr olds may be, for want of a better label, the new Moneyball.

If it's option B above, that's a bad job. If they are really willing to go to an AAV around 20, and they led with the lowball offer that was rumored, that's a huge misplay. The negotiation is over if he becomes a FA so there should have been more urgency if (b) is what happened here

 
I think that if "option B" comes into play, some of the responsibility is Lester's.  
 
The way I view it, he's not some kind of remote god-like figure to be supplicated with offerings which appeal to his ego.  If he's truly willing to take a home town/team discount it's because he actually likes playing in Boston, for Boston, and has a good history here.  IIRC, this was the ownership group who completely stood by Lester when he went into his cancer treatments.  Wasn't there a lot of reporting as to how great the team was to Lester and how much he appreciated it, etc. etc.?  Now they're villains because they don't want to overpay him? 
 
If Lester holds his breath and refuses to sign because he was originally lowballed, or because the team waited a week or two to make another offer, that's on Lester.   Absent the team doing something to actively mess with him and destroy whatever goodwill flows between them, negotiations are negotiations.  
 
Lester's already been paid $40mil over his career.   That's pretty much what we call "generational" wealth.  Now he's set to get anywhere between 70 and 120(?) guaranteed additional millions of dollars.  Unless he's blinded by greed (as so many players are) he's got the chance to pitch for any team he wants to.  From what I understand of the situation, Lester has no significant ties to any other team.  (He's from TX, so he might prefer to pitch for the Rangers.)  
 
If Lester signs elsewhere, he'll go for the largest amount of money.  We'll get the usual excuse about showing "respect" and how Team X "really wanted me" and how Lester has "his family to think of" and so forth and so on.  But it will just be about adding additional disposable income. 

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I think that if "option B" comes into play, some of the responsibility is Lester's.  
 
The way I view it, he's not some kind of remote god-like figure to be supplicated with offerings which appeal to his ego.  If he's truly willing to take a home town/team discount it's because he actually likes playing in Boston, for Boston, and has a good history here.  IIRC, this was the ownership group who completely stood by Lester when he went into his cancer treatments.  Wasn't there a lot of reporting as to how great the team was to Lester and how much he appreciated it, etc. etc.?  Now they're villains because they don't want to overpay him? 
 
If Lester holds his breath and refuses to sign because he was originally lowballed, or because the team waited a week or two to make another offer, that's on Lester.   Absent the team doing something to actively mess with him and destroy whatever goodwill flows between them, negotiations are negotiations.  
 
Lester's already been paid $40mil over his career.   That's pretty much what we call "generational" wealth.  Now he's set to get anywhere between 70 and 120(?) guaranteed additional millions of dollars.  Unless he's blinded by greed (as so many players are) he's got the chance to pitch for any team he wants to.  From what I understand of the situation, Lester has no significant ties to any other team.  (He's from TX, so he might prefer to pitch for the Rangers.)
 
If Lester signs elsewhere, he'll go for the largest amount of money.  We'll get the usual excuse about showing "respect" and how Team X "really wanted me" and how Lester has "his family to think of" and so forth and so on.  But it will just be about adding additional disposable income.

It's funny that everyone thinks this. He's not from Texas.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Really?  Doesn't he live in TX?

 

[bankshot1]

He's from the Seattle area.

 

[maxotaur]

Really?  Doesn't he live in TX?

He might "live" there for tax purposes, but he's from the Great NW. Funny. He's a great pitcher so of course people see him as being from that absurd country.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Ah, he bought a 3.4 Mil house in Georgia.  http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140123-jon-lester-i-want-to-be-here-until-they-have-to-rip-this-jersey-off-my-back.ece

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

He's from the Seattle area.

How about Hernandez, Lester, Walker, Iwakuma... That's a hell of a rotation.

 

[bankshot1]

How about Hernandez, Lester, Walker, Iwakuma... That's a hell of a rotation.

 
At least that wouldn't suck as much as seeing him pitch against the Sox 4-5 times a year in pinstripes.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Lester's already been paid $40mil over his career.   That's pretty much what we call "generational" wealth.  Now he's set to get anywhere between 70 and 120(?) guaranteed additional millions of dollars.  Unless he's blinded by greed (as so many players are) he's got the chance to pitch for any team he wants to.  From what I understand of the situation, Lester has no significant ties to any other team.  (He's from TX, so he might prefer to pitch for the Rangers.)  
 
If Lester signs elsewhere, he'll go for the largest amount of money.  We'll get the usual excuse about showing "respect" and how Team X "really wanted me" and how Lester has "his family to think of" and so forth and so on.  But it will just be about adding additional disposable income.

I usually agree that these guys whine about being underpaid when they're making millions of dollars but in Lester's case he really deserves to be compensated. He's been a top ten pitcher for 8 years accumulating over 30 fWAR for $40 mil. When you have guys who are making that in 2 seasons, I think Lester has a good case to want to be paid the same as his equals. If he's anything like his predecessors he can still be effective for at least 5 more years.

 

[Rasputin]

Hi Ras. Thanks for the introduction. I'm Max.

Rasputin: You're acting like a child. Baseball is a business. If the Red Sox fail to sign your binky it's not because they don't care about winning--which, incidentally, is the only thing they should really care about--it's because the team and the player have different views on how much he's going to be worth going forward.

Max: For the 2nd time I'm much older than your stated age of 5. Please forgive me (been drinking quite a lot - too much) but I think your counter-point ignores all of the evidence of Lester being the about the best pitcher the Sox have had since Pedro (prove me wrong with stats). Go ahead...

Let me get this straight. You think our prospects are bad. You're basing an argument on winning percentage, you're a quisling, you entirely missed the context of my introduction, and you think that Lester being the best pitcher we've had since Pedro is a relevant argument.

I think I might just be done with you.

I will close by saying this. When the Sox are making the decision on Lester, they won't be thinking of you.

 

[snowmanny]

Psychologically it's hard for most of us to pay more for something today that we could have had for much less eight months before: a house, stocks, whatever. It can even be annoying to purchase a piece of clothing that was 30% off last week.

John Henry is an unusual being, so hopefully he doesn't suffer the same angst about this sort of circumstance as most typical humans, but as far as I can tell the Red Sox are likely headed to this scenario:

1) Having a strong need for a Lester-type pitcher;
2) Having the money and cap space to pay a Lester-type pitcher;
3) Having a restless fan base and declining NESN ratings following one of the worst seasons of their tenure;
4) The cost of Lester going from ~5/110 to ~6/150.

 

[bankshot1]

I know we've almost pounded this topic into the ground, but the one area I'm stuck on is the Sox rationale for the 4/70 offer. According to all reports negotiations were going well, Lester to paraphrase seemed to indicate good progress was being made, and that if they got close, negotiations would continue into the season. Then the sox offer the 4/70. And this as after Hamel signs for 6/144 contract, Scherzer turns down a 6/144, Kershaw breaks the bank. and Tanaka signs with the MFYs,
 
The 4/70 seemed a device to purposely derail or at least slow negotiations.

 

[MakMan44]

I know we've almost pounded this topic into the ground, but the one area I'm stuck on is the Sox rationale for the 4/70 offer. According to all reports negotiations were going well, Lester to paraphrase seemed to indicate good progress was being made, and that if they got close, negotiations would continue into the season. Then the sox offer the 4/70. And this as after Hamel signs for 6/144 contract, Scherzer turns down a 6/144, Kershaw breaks the bank. and Tanaka signs with the MFYs,
 
The 4/70 seemed a device to purposely derail or at least slow negotiations.

I wonder if there were option years or clause that would bring the salary and years to much higher totals. So even though the 4/$70 was what they were willing to pay if Lester stayed a 4 ERA pitcher, they had clauses in there that would pay him much more if he exceeded their expectations. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I usually agree that these guys whine about being underpaid when they're making millions of dollars but in Lester's case he really deserves to be compensated. He's been a top ten pitcher for 8 years accumulating over 30 fWAR for $40 mil. When you have guys who are making that in 2 seasons, I think Lester has a good case to want to be paid the same as his equals. If he's anything like his predecessors he can still be effective for at least 5 more years.

 
I think that's a valid point.  
 
FWIW, I don't think owners should be sticking to the public/players for marginal increases in generational wealth either.  The bottom line is that baseball has become a money making enterprise - but at the end of the day the sport is an entertainment (albeit an engaging one).  While I know a lot of morally upright human beings who have far more important skills than the ability to throw a slider, I don't begrudge Lester his income, nor a basic desire to be compensated similar to his peers.  However, at some point the money becomes so ridiculous that the rationales players offer just don't hold water - including that of clubs showing them "respect."  I actually respect players who just say that they're in it to max out their income.  Or players like Pedroia who actually take far less than they could get elsewhere because they a) want to play for a particular team, b) want to free up part of the budget to get talent other than themselves.  

 

[MakMan44]

I usually agree that these guys whine about being underpaid when they're making millions of dollars but in Lester's case he really deserves to be compensated. He's been a top ten pitcher for 8 years accumulating over 30 fWAR for $40 mil. When you have guys who are making that in 2 seasons, I think Lester has a good case to want to be paid the same as his equals. If he's anything like his predecessors he can still be effective for at least 5 more years.

God I hate this argument. Overpaying for future value because of past value is quite possibly the stupidest thing about baseball, or any sport really. I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I expect the system to change but it still irks me. 

 

[Devizier]

How about Hernandez, Lester, Walker, Iwakuma... That's a hell of a rotation.

 
Fortunately for the Sox, the Mariners don't need pitching. But with their front office, who knows.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I know we've almost pounded this topic into the ground, but the one area I'm stuck on is the Sox rationale for the 4/70 offer. According to all reports negotiations were going well, Lester to paraphrase seemed to indicate good progress was being made, and that if they got close, negotiations would continue into the season. Then the sox offer the 4/70. And this as after Hamel signs for 6/144 contract, Scherzer turns down a 6/144, Kershaw breaks the bank. and Tanaka signs with the MFYs,
 
The 4/70 seemed a device to purposely derail or at least slow negotiations.

 
Or the report of a 4/70 offer was a bit of bullshit that the media ran amok with.  I still have a hard time believing that at any point, the Red Sox offered 4/70 and that's the end of the story.  For all we know, 4/70 was an offer last spring (spring 2013) and it only surfaced this spring.  To me, it seems a big stretch to think that the Red Sox made that offer, which has been deemed as supremely offensive, and the Lester camp keeps insisting that things are amicable between the two parties.  Either it's a BS report or an opening salvo that the Red Sox have already significantly built upon in the course of negotiation.

 

[bankshot1]

 
Or the report of a 4/70 offer was a bit of bullshit that the media ran amok with.  I still have a hard time believing that at any point, the Red Sox offered 4/70 and that's the end of the story.  For all we know, 4/70 was an offer last spring (spring 2013) and it only surfaced this spring.  To me, it seems a big stretch to think that the Red Sox made that offer, which has been deemed as supremely offensive, and the Lester camp keeps insisting that things are amicable between the two parties.  Either it's a BS report or an opening salvo that the Red Sox have already significantly built upon in the course of negotiation.

Without going through the Lester/Sox timeline, I think this momentum-killing offer was put forth this spring.
 
And the Sox have enough shills to put their spin on the 4/70, or even deny the offer was made, but have not. I'm just curious as to Lucchino's thinking on Lester.

 

[Rasputin]

I know we've almost pounded this topic into the ground, but the one area I'm stuck on is the Sox rationale for the 4/70 offer. According to all reports negotiations were going well, Lester to paraphrase seemed to indicate good progress was being made, and that if they got close, negotiations would continue into the season. Then the sox offer the 4/70. And this as after Hamel signs for 6/144 contract, Scherzer turns down a 6/144, Kershaw breaks the bank. and Tanaka signs with the MFYs,
 
The 4/70 seemed a device to purposely derail or at least slow negotiations.

 
I suspect you think that because it's the last data point we have on a negotiation that has, thus far, failed to lead anywhere. It's probably a number that represents what they would pay for someone with a fourish ERA going forward. 

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

God I hate this argument. Overpaying for future value because of past value is quite possibly the stupidest thing about baseball, or any sport really. I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I expect the system to change but it still irks me.

I agree with both points here. It's stupid that they get paid for what they've done and it's something that's done to extremes in baseball, and unfortunately its not going to change anytime soon. There's been a precedent set and the Sox need to follow suit or they're going to lose their best pitcher.

 

[bankshot1]

 
I suspect you think that because it's the last data point we have on a negotiation that has, thus far, failed to lead anywhere. It's probably a number that represents what they would pay for someone with a fourish ERA going forward. 

I'm trying to understand the negotiations for a pitcher who is probably viewed in the company of guys making. from $23-30 million a year, and guys who signed for 6+ years. I'm trying to resolve the rationale of 4/70 offer. If you think the Sox view him as a fourish-era guy going forward, then they should save their time, and drop out of the bidding.

 

[judyb]

I'm trying to understand the negotiations for a pitcher who is probably viewed in the company of guys making. from $23-30 million a year, and guys who signed for 6+ years. I'm trying to resolve the rationale of 4/70 offer. If you think the Sox view him as a fourish-era guy going forward, then they should save their time, and drop out of the bidding.

A year ago there were posters here wondering if the Red Sox were even going to pick up Lester's 2014 option. This offseason, the projections for Lester's 2014 season were in the 3-4 win range while projections for some of the pitchers we're now comparing him to were in the 5-6 range.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The fact that he isn't signed yet makes me think there are two possible things going on:
 
1. As Snowmanny said, they may not ever intend to sign him.  Maybe they set an absolute ceiling at something like 5/100 and Lester said not even close.  So now they're just going through the motions and the chances of him resigning are basically zero.
 
2. They wanted to see how he got through this season, both in terms of health and performance, and then they'll give him whatever it takes.  So maybe they could've had him at 6/130 in March, but they didn't want to be exposed for all of 2014 before the contract even kicked in.  So now if it costs 6/150 they view that extra 20m as kind of a 2014 insurance policy and they're fine with that deal.

 
After thinking it about some more and reading the rest of the thread, which had some very good points, I'm going with option 2 that I posted a few days ago.  I really think they wanted to be 100% sure before committing to a 9 figure deal, and this will get done at some point but closer to market value than was expected.

 

[dcmissle]

I agree with both points here. It's stupid that they get paid for what they've done and it's something that's done to extremes in baseball, and unfortunately its not going to change anytime soon. There's been a precedent set and the Sox need to follow suit or they're going to lose their best pitcher.

The market is what it is. Nobody is defying it and remaining championship competitive over a sustained period.

It's nice to think you have a basket of young pitchers who are plausible succesors to this guy. It's hubris to act on the assumption that you're beat the numbers that people have laid out here. At least it is if you're not running the St Louis Cardinals.

I don't see why paying for Lester's past success is crazy if you have reason to believe he's at intermission and that Act II could be as good. Again, there is some precedent for this historically with lefties who can evolve their games.

And as others have noted, this is right in the MFY wheelhouse. They will give him 6 for 162 and it will be over before it starts, absent more Dodger magic money or something else of out left field.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

God I hate this argument. Overpaying for future value because of past value is quite possibly the stupidest thing about baseball, or any sport really. I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I expect the system to change but it still irks me. 

 
Looking at his past performance isn't necessarily about paying him for past service.  The way we inform our projections is by looking at that performance.  Lester has a track record that makes it easier to feel comfortable about paying him market rates going forward.  There are no major injury flags, he clearly doesn't have problems with a high pressure media market, he's performed well in the post season and has 7 straight seasons of at least 191 innings with only one season in which his peripherals weren't excellent.  And even in his down 2012, he had a 4.11 FIP and a 3.89 xFIP.  He's a proven commodity who is still young enough that there is no reason to expect a sharp decline in the next 5 or 6 years.
 
Pay the man his money and build the rotation around him.  The plan should be for him to be the team's ace in the short term with the hope that one of the kids supplants him by the end of the deal.  Maybe it's Henry Owens, maybe it's Rubby de la Rosa.  Hell, maybe it's Trey Ball or one of Acosta or Espinoza on a fast track.  The team is going to keep pumping high upside pitchers into the system and at some point you have to trust that you are going to develop another high caliber starting pitcher.  In the mean time, pay the one you have and keep the team competitive.
 
Go to 6/140 if you have to.  It's probably more than he'll be worth over the course of the deal, but I'm willing to bet it won't be by much and that's the downside of the current system MLB employs.  Players have their value depressed significantly early in their careers and get overpaid later.  A smart team will avoid getting bogged down by too many contracts that are overpaying players who are in the free agent stage of their career, but I'm not convinced you can build a long term contender while completely avoiding those players all together.  Even the 2013 Sox, for all the excellent value they had on their roster did willingly overpay several of their veterans.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How about this, if the CBA allows it.

Lester signs a 1 year deal, $40 million. The Sox have an option for 5 years, $100. Lester has an option for 3 years, $30 million. So if he blows out a shoulder next year he gets the 4, $70. If he pitches well next year, he gets 6, $140, basically what Scherzer got. Or he collects $40 million to delay free agency by 1 year.

 

[soxhop411]

A year ago there were posters here wondering if the Red Sox were even going to pick up Lester's 2014 option. This offseason, the projections for Lester's 2014 season were in the 3-4 win range while projections for some of the pitchers we're now comparing him to were in the 5-6 range.

I remember that discussion last season.

 

[BosRedSox5]

Contract talks allegedly tabled per Heyman. On mobile or I'd post the tweet.

 

[bankshot1]

 
Looking at his past performance isn't necessarily about paying him for past service.  The way we inform our projections is by looking at that performance.  Lester has a track record that makes it easier to feel comfortable about paying him market rates going forward.  There are no major injury flags, he clearly doesn't have problems with a high pressure media market, he's performed well in the post season and has 7 straight seasons of at least 191 innings with only one season in which his peripherals weren't excellent.  And even in his down 2012, he had a 4.11 FIP and a 3.89 xFIP.  He's a proven commodity who is still young enough that there is no reason to expect a sharp decline in the next 5 or 6 years.
 
Pay the man his money and build the rotation around him.  The plan should be for him to be the team's ace in the short term with the hope that one of the kids supplants him by the end of the deal.  Maybe it's Henry Owens, maybe it's Rubby de la Rosa.  Hell, maybe it's Trey Ball or one of Acosta or Espinoza on a fast track.  The team is going to keep pumping high upside pitchers into the system and at some point you have to trust that you are going to develop another high caliber starting pitcher.  In the mean time, pay the one you have and keep the team competitive.
 
Go to 6/140 if you have to.  It's probably more than he'll be worth over the course of the deal, but I'm willing to bet it won't be by much and that's the downside of the current system MLB employs.  Players have their value depressed significantly early in their careers and get overpaid later.  A smart team will avoid getting bogged down by too many contracts that are overpaying players who are in the free agent stage of their career, but I'm not convinced you can build a long term contender while completely avoiding those players all together.  Even the 2013 Sox, for all the excellent value they had on their roster did willingly overpay several of their veterans.

Great post.
 
edit: the unfortunate thing is that rather than offer 4/70, and sour negotiations, if not outright kill them, they could have offered 5/100+ maybe gone to 6/120 and saved a few bucks for other players.