Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
bankshot1 said:
Is 4/70M for Lester any more of a bargain than Pedey at 8/110M?
If the reports were true, I would think it is not completely unreasonable for the 1st step in negotiations by the RS to test exactly what Lester means when he states he will resign at a discount.
A quick response by Lester of I was thinking more of the lines of 6/140 or whatever. Then negotiations could truly begin.
To state the obvious, when contract talks are deferred there is risk to both parties. For the player --- an injury, poor performance, etc. would cost him money. For the team ---- better than expected performance, better market conditions, player getting closer to free agency will cost them money. In this case, it is the latter that happened and the RS not closing the deal, will cost them either money or a player. However, just because it did not work out well for the RS this time, does it mean that the strategy is completely unwarranted. They probably just felt that they were better off waiting as a hedge against an injury or poor performance.
In the end, I think a deal gets done since the RS have a need for a #1/2A pitcher and it seems unlikely that there will be many better options than Lester at 6/~132. If Lester no longer wants to give the RS a discount (or really never intended to give them a discount), no one could blame him going to the highest bidder which is likely to be ~6/160. However, if I am the RS at that point. I think my money is better spent elsewhere.
When Pedey signed last year, he was under contract through the '15 season ($11M, club option). Pedey would not have been a FA until the '16 season. Lester may be a FA as soon as this season concludes.
Again, the disconnect between the 4/70 and what was a reasonably well-defined market for 1-2 starting pitchers (5-6 years 100-150 million or more) is what I found curious.
Me too. I don't think it's ever a good idea to send out a low-ball offer in any negotiation where you really want to make a deal. The risk is too great that it will piss off the other side and/or alter the tone of the conversation.bankshot1 said:
The 4/70 makes no sense - if it really happened - unless they just don't want him anywhere near market price.
I hope I am wrong but if he goes to FA, he is as good as gone. The market for pitchers of his caliber is going to be more than this ownership group/management has shown an appetite for in years past - and I am not referring to the 4/$70mm being reported. That is a starting bid and may be garbage altogether.
That said, how comfortable are the Boston Red Sox in handing a pitcher over 30 a six-years-plus contract? Because that is what Lester will be offered come this fall given his consistency and durability. C.J. Wilson got five years and isn't as good as Lester. My guess is that Lester will get something around what Greinke got two seasons ago given salary inflation. I will be shocked if this front-office goes that high in terms of dollars and, more importantly, years. However, there are other teams who can do so, such the Yankees or the Dodgers, because they can afford to take the risk. Lester is going to get paid really well going forward but it probably won't be in Boston.
That said, how comfortable are the Boston Red Sox in handing a pitcher over 30 a six-years-plus contract? Because that is what Lester will be offered come this fall given his consistency and durability. C.J. Wilson got five years and isn't as good as Lester. My guess is that Lester will get something around what Greinke got two seasons ago given salary inflation. I will be shocked if this front-office goes that high in terms of dollars and, more importantly, years. However, there are other teams who can do so, such the Yankees or the Dodgers, because they can afford to take the risk. Lester is going to get paid really well going forward but it probably won't be in Boston.
I just want to concentrate on my pitching = I am in the driver's seat. And he is.
And I'll say this about the Yankees. For all of their misbegotten adventures, there is zero chance they would let the Red Sox get anywhere near Lester if the roles were reversed. Particularly since they had so many expensive lessons paying for somebody else's pitching.
And their point about "big game pitcher", it applies. In their market, certainly. And in our's.
And I'll say this about the Yankees. For all of their misbegotten adventures, there is zero chance they would let the Red Sox get anywhere near Lester if the roles were reversed. Particularly since they had so many expensive lessons paying for somebody else's pitching.
And their point about "big game pitcher", it applies. In their market, certainly. And in our's.
I agree with you that he'll be gone, and at the price that he'll be commanding, I wouldn't pay him either. The tragedy of this all is that he likely could have been had for a very reasonable price a few months ago. I will never understand how it came to this.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
Ed Hillel said:
How did it come to this? It would seem they're absolutely infatuated with their modeling of the trajectories of players over 30.
Somebody who never responded to an opening bid probably didn't want to stay as much as he claims.
kieckeredinthehead said:
Why? You receive a lowball offer. You don't counter it, you say, "Call me when you're serious."
Sox finally getting around to being serious happens too late with FA only a half-season away.
The behavior you describe is more indicative of somebody whose priority is getting paid, not staying with his current team.Harry Hooper said:
It would be a lot easier to claim that if they had presented a counteroffer and the Sox rejected it outright.twibnotes said:
The two thoughts 1) getting paid (fairly) and 2) staying with the team (exhibiting loyalty) are only mutually exclusive when the offer (4/70) is so beyond the realm of realistic as to be laughable. If however a realistic offer that was remotely in line with the market for a pitcher of Lester's calibre was tendered and rejected, then you might be on more solid ground questioning Lester's priorities.kieckeredinthehead said:
And fwiw, there is nothing wrong with a professional athlete putting a high priority on getting paid in line with his peers. These guys know how to keep score.
We don't really know that the 4/70 offer was made AT ALL. We know nothing of the details of the negotiations at all. There's really no point in questioning either Lester's or the team's priorities because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. We honestly won't know anything until Lester signs a contract, whether it's with the Red Sox or someone else.
And around and around we go.kieckeredinthehead said:
There was a time when the Sox were in the driver's seat (yrs ago, prior to his current contract), but now Lester is about to be a FA. He has the leverage, and the Sox FO has to show him the love.
If they don't retain him bc they don't think he's worth it, that's their decision...but I sure hope they didn't screw up the negotiation bc of an insulting low ball offer. $70 for 4 is a joke - why even put it on the table?
If they don't turn it around by the deadline, I'd really roll the dice here and trade a durable, front-line left-handed starter at the deadline ... then try to sign him in the off-season.
Lester's recent comments that he wants to wait until the offseason to get a deal done speak to testing the market anyway, so the only risk you have is that the team you trade him to will use the exclusivity window to get him signed. But there are ways around that ... particularly by sending him somewhere that needs a pitcher for a run, but is a team that wouldn't put out the major bucks it will need to sign him after the season. A place such as Pittsburgh, for example, Miami or Kansas City.
The Sox are likely to be competing against the field for his next contract anyway. Unless they are certain they can get it done before he hits the market, I'd be in favor of getting something tangible and take their chances later.
Lester's recent comments that he wants to wait until the offseason to get a deal done speak to testing the market anyway, so the only risk you have is that the team you trade him to will use the exclusivity window to get him signed. But there are ways around that ... particularly by sending him somewhere that needs a pitcher for a run, but is a team that wouldn't put out the major bucks it will need to sign him after the season. A place such as Pittsburgh, for example, Miami or Kansas City.
The Sox are likely to be competing against the field for his next contract anyway. Unless they are certain they can get it done before he hits the market, I'd be in favor of getting something tangible and take their chances later.
What is a team going to give up for a rental if they know going in that they aren't going to try and sign him for longer?
E5 Yaz said:
The only way that works in the Red Sox favor is if they're convinced that whatever they're getting in return is something they can't get unless the other team is getting Lester. This isn't a Ray Bourque, end of career situation where they're doing him a favor by giving him a chance at a ring that he hasn't and/or won't get here. They don't really need to endear themselves to Lester like that, and I don't see him viewing it that way no matter what lip service they may pay to the idea.
I mean, Pittsburgh would have to be offering Polanco (or whatever team would have to be offering similar) and demanding Lester or no deal for it to make sense from the Red Sox side. And that sort of thing is a pipedream within a pipedream.
There's still a chance he re-signs at the end of the year and Ben should retain any chance he has. But, that being said if they're not willing to give him market value they should look to deal him.MakMan44 said:
No - I think our prospects are great. The point was we have too many of them currently on the team.Rasputin said:
The other point was several of the prospects will not pan out. You don't throw away a Lester over "maybes".
And I'm a "quisling"? Because I'm not blindly following every single aspect of the plan? You think they have made no mistakes? Fumble on Ras.
[SIZE=9pt]"He's going to see Dr. [James] Andrews a week from Monday," Girardi said. "[Surgery] is always a possibility when you have a degenerative knee. I'm not exactly sure if he was to have surgery what it would be, that's yet to be determined."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Sabathia, who will turn 34 later this month, is signed for the next two seasons. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Girardi entertained the notion that Sabathia may not pitch again, at least not in pinstripes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]"I think it's too early to predict that," Girardi said. "But whenever you have degenerative issues that cause surgery or things like that, there's always a little question there."[/SIZE]
CC Sabathia is likely done for the year. During today's pre-game on WFAN, Girardi speculated that Sabathia might need micro-fracture surgery. If the Yankees weren't already front and center to sign Lester, they are now. Unless the Red Sox are willing to play in the Yankees financial ballpark (and they won't be), then it makes sense to trade Lester and at least see some return.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/11176183/joe-girardi-says-new-york-yankees-not-counting-cc-sabathia-year
[SIZE=9pt]Sabathia, who will turn 34 later this month, is signed for the next two seasons. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Girardi entertained the notion that Sabathia may not pitch again, at least not in pinstripes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]"I think it's too early to predict that," Girardi said. "But whenever you have degenerative issues that cause surgery or things like that, there's always a little question there."[/SIZE]
CC Sabathia is likely done for the year. During today's pre-game on WFAN, Girardi speculated that Sabathia might need micro-fracture surgery. If the Yankees weren't already front and center to sign Lester, they are now. Unless the Red Sox are willing to play in the Yankees financial ballpark (and they won't be), then it makes sense to trade Lester and at least see some return.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/11176183/joe-girardi-says-new-york-yankees-not-counting-cc-sabathia-year
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I wouldn't even begin asking about a Polanco type. That, as you say, is just silliness.
But if they're convinced they're out of it for the season, the options are pretty clear. You either have to sign him before he hits the open market (because it's an open question whether they will be able to persuade him to take less than the money that will be out there), or you trade him to a team that is willing to go all in on a run this year (and might be able to go above everyone's favorite cliche "pennies on a dollar.")
And if you look at the existing holes on the roster, and those that age/injury might create over the next 3 years, this might be the optimum time to dangle him out there and see who bites. The downside, obviously, is that you don't have him there locked in the 1-hole when the young arms start to fill out the rotation.
Seeing what you can get harms no one. If there's nothing appetizing out there, you don't do it. But if there was ever a season to test the waters, it would be this one.
E5 Yaz said:
I have no doubts that Ben has already been putting lines in the water to "see what he can get". He'd be a shitty GM not to...due diligence and all that. And if there is an offer he can't refuse, then by all means he should take it if he can't get Lester extended. And no, that offer doesn't have to reach Polanco levels to be one that can't be refused.
I was more speaking to the notion of trading him with the plan of then re-signing him in the off-season. That, IMO, would have to require a huge haul of Polanco proportions because it would involve convincing Lester that they really didn't want to trade him but how could they resist such an opportunity. Lester's not going to be convinced he's in their long term plans if they trade him for a couple lottery ticket single-A prospects.
I think it would also have to be a situation in which they work out the framework of a long-term deal with Lester, but for the betterment of the team, he agrees to be traded for a huge haul with the promise of coming back to sign the agreed upon deal in the winter. But if they can get a deal he's agreeable to in that situation, why bother with the trade unless, again, it's a Polanco-esque return?
soxhop411 said:
This is an interesting line that no one seems to be considering. Obviously we may never know what the issues are, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that money wasn't the main issue at the time.
dcmissle said:
The MFYs have also gotten a few lessons in paying players who aren't producing. They can afford that. The Red Sox cannot.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
That's the rub, of course. And I think we'll in more agreement than it seems. I guess I would be more willing to move him in a deal that didn't have a Polanco-Myers primary piece, because my pessimism has me believing that he'll be moving on. I'd prefer he'd just stay and anchor the rotation in its next incarnation.
Hey, the joke's on us.
Lester was the one who wanted to wait until mid-season. Now that he sees what a sucky team the Red Sox have, he's decided to seek an organization with playoff hopes in 2015 and beyond. Probably one that doesn't play the game of "let's make an insulting offer to our star pitcher in the hopes that he'll counter with something lower than what we were ultimately willing to pay..."
Lester was the one who wanted to wait until mid-season. Now that he sees what a sucky team the Red Sox have, he's decided to seek an organization with playoff hopes in 2015 and beyond. Probably one that doesn't play the game of "let's make an insulting offer to our star pitcher in the hopes that he'll counter with something lower than what we were ultimately willing to pay..."
It's a business, for both sides.
If you low ball to buy time to get more information, you have to expect that the information could bump the price, and that other developments too could bump the price. See Sabbathia above.
And when that happens, even if you are a diehard fan (much less a sophisticated CEO, team President, GM) you shouldn't whine. You can't reasonably expect to buy a stock at the market price a half year ago, before two bang out quarters
It's cute when fans attempt to repeal economic first principles, or tell players, you should be satisfied with x amount.
If you low ball to buy time to get more information, you have to expect that the information could bump the price, and that other developments too could bump the price. See Sabbathia above.
And when that happens, even if you are a diehard fan (much less a sophisticated CEO, team President, GM) you shouldn't whine. You can't reasonably expect to buy a stock at the market price a half year ago, before two bang out quarters
It's cute when fans attempt to repeal economic first principles, or tell players, you should be satisfied with x amount.
If the Yankees were only one good SP away from being competitive, maybe. But they're not, so I doubt it.snowmanny said:
In general, the Red Sox cannot. Given the quantity and quality of prospects they have, I think they can over the next 3 to 4 years. They should have near minimum salaries at almost half the roster, including bench and middle relief, over that period. If they don't, we're all vastly over rating the farm system. When you can cover 12 spots for less than $12 million, and a payroll that can comfortably be upwards of $175 million, you can afford some bad breaks.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Rob Bradford @bradfo 3s
According to sources, Lester is still open to in-season conversation if senses offer won't lead to prolonged talks
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/04/sources-jon-lester-would-listen-during-season-if-red-sox-offer-led-to-short-negotiations/ …
According to sources, Lester is still open to in-season conversation if senses offer won't lead to prolonged talks
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/04/sources-jon-lester-would-listen-during-season-if-red-sox-offer-led-to-short-negotiations/ …
"Don't waste my time this time, as you did last time. But otherwise, let's try to get this done."
Shrewd. He's testing them. And he's not going to let them set him up as the bad guy, which they have demonstrated they are entirely capable of doing.
"Well we tried to re-open talks with Jon during the season, but he declined."
Ah, nope
Shrewd. He's testing them. And he's not going to let them set him up as the bad guy, which they have demonstrated they are entirely capable of doing.
"Well we tried to re-open talks with Jon during the season, but he declined."
Ah, nope
Couple of thoughts after reading Bradfo's scoop
1) 5 for 120 isn't some arbitrary number. It's a message to the front office to put up or shut up. It also prices in a hometown discount as Olnley has been pointing to Hamels and Sherzer's floated price tag of 144-150 range.
2) It's been pretty regularly reported that the clubhouse doesn't get why this extension is taking so long and have been closely following the developments. Pretty telling Bradfo reported this the same day as Heyman's report which highlighted the yankee interest.
3) They should do backflips to the table if Lester will take a five year deal.
1) 5 for 120 isn't some arbitrary number. It's a message to the front office to put up or shut up. It also prices in a hometown discount as Olnley has been pointing to Hamels and Sherzer's floated price tag of 144-150 range.
2) It's been pretty regularly reported that the clubhouse doesn't get why this extension is taking so long and have been closely following the developments. Pretty telling Bradfo reported this the same day as Heyman's report which highlighted the yankee interest.
3) They should do backflips to the table if Lester will take a five year deal.
Do the Sox do no-trade clauses? I'd guess that if Lester gives them a discount, that's got to be part of it, no?
Red(s)HawksFan said:
You're right. We don't have a seat at the table for this or any other negotiation. However, we do have some evidence to believe the 4/$70M offer happened.
1) The story was broken by Ken Rosenthal. It hasn't been unusual in recent seasons for major Sox stories to be broken by out-of-town reporters.
2) We have multiple reports beyond Rosenthal (e.g., Steve Buckley) that the Sox players believe the 4/$70M offer happened. Presumably they believe this because Lester told them that's what happened. He well may have left out contingencies to that offer, such as $5 million step raises or additional vesting years for hitting certain milestones, but it's hard to believe he'd make it up out of whole cloth.
3) Back in the spring the owner, the GM ,and the manager were all out there talking about how MLB is a young man's game, how it is folly to sign players over 30 to long-term contracts, how the Sox were not going to do what other clubs do with FA, and how long-term contention is built on turning over your roster by breaking in 2-3 young'uns every season. Taking them at their word, they're not comfortable going beyond 3 years on a contract with a player over 30. All these public pronouncements can even be viewed as setting some PR groundwork for the popular Lester's departure. They knew Lester would never agree to a 3-year deal, so the Sox being comfortable with a longer deal only if it could be done at a sizable discount fits right in here.
4) The question of Lucchino's involvement. Dan Roche (both in ST and now) sees LL's fingerprints all over this negotiation. LL is a protégé of Edward Bennett Williams and his "Contest Living" philosophy. By all accounts LL is someone who lives for the tussle and would use every possible tactic to try and win a negotiation and not worry about any bruised feelings on either side as it's just business. It fits LL's MO to try to exploit the "hometown discount" talk by Lester to the hilt.
5) Heyman's story today claims sources maintaining that the 4/$70M offer did in fact happen, seemingly confirming the Rosenthal story while suggesting some more context to the offer.
Yes, we don't have metaphysical certainty, but it seems like more than nothing. Maybe LL can close a deal at the ASG.
Well, for those thinking the Sox couldn't have gotten anything good in trades for Lester, Peavy and/or Koji, look at the haul Theo just got from Oakland for Samardzija and Hammel:
Sadly, I think the A's were probably the best trade partner for us. Great job by Theo on this one.
If 5/120 would actually do it, and you have to figure that a figure in a piece about Lester's side of things came from his side, then I think this is something that is going to get done and probably pretty quickly.
Which is to say, they give him an offer to mull over during the break and the official signing happens right after the break.
Which is to say, they give him an offer to mull over during the break and the official signing happens right after the break.
Its going to take six years. I don't know why people think he will accept five years when he can get something like six at $150 from either/both of the most free-spending teams in baseball, each with a rotation spot to fill. And for the record, if I am giving a pitcher not named Kershaw or Hernandez a contract like that, its probably to a guy like Lester. That said, I will be shocked if the Sox go more than five years. I will be thrilled if they manage to get him to bite for just five.
- Status