Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
Not a surprise. There were numerous posts to the effect that we don't know what happened. And in the details that is true enough. But there wasn't just smoke around the 4 for 70. It was a raging dumpster fire.rundugrun said:
Deny/deny/deny was a non-starter.
Did not hear the details of this, but they could be prepping the fans for the end game, which could conceivably involve a trade.
Edit -- this is not recriminatory. If you effed up, you just have to move ahead. Malpractice would be not sounding Lester out again. They probably have done that and we're not encouraged by the response.
TheoShmeo said:
If I'm not mistaken, there was a lot of conjecture that the offer had been considered an insult the last time Peavy spoke about this. People found it particularly intriguing that while Lester was mum, his 'mate was speaking for him where he wouldn't.
Man, I wish Peavy were pitching better. He seems so much like what we want out of a Red Sox player. Except for the performance, of course. But that could be applied to a lot of guys right now...
He didn't.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Cherington as GM probably held the talks with Lester's agent, but LL as head of baseball ops, probably sets the budget for Cherington to work with.
I think its fair to characterize this as a collaborative FO fuck-up in the Lester negotiations.
ETA the following from CHB's LL column.
4/70 on top of his $13mm option would be Lackey money, for a guy who was a year away from free agency and hadn't pitched as well over the past three seasons as Lackey did over his last three years in Anaheim.
And it was an opening bid -- not the club's last, best and final offer.
I'm not saying Lester should have accepted that offer, but if he truly considered it an insult (and to be clear, that may be spin), then all the talk of "hometown discount" is bullshit, and Lester was committed to testing the market unless the FO blew him away. Because without the benefit of hindsight now that Lester is on track to have his best season since 2010, 4/70 was a totally legitimate way to open the discussion.
And it was an opening bid -- not the club's last, best and final offer.
I'm not saying Lester should have accepted that offer, but if he truly considered it an insult (and to be clear, that may be spin), then all the talk of "hometown discount" is bullshit, and Lester was committed to testing the market unless the FO blew him away. Because without the benefit of hindsight now that Lester is on track to have his best season since 2010, 4/70 was a totally legitimate way to open the discussion.
maufman said:
I'm going to have to continue to totally disagree with you about Lester. 4/70 isn't in the ballpark even taking a hometown discount into account. Scherzer was just offered 6/144. Tanaka just cost 7/175. Your definition of hometown discount must be a lot different than mine if you think 4/70, even if you want to include the option in the equation, is anywhere close to reasonable.
If they had opened with something like 5/100 on top of his option to make it 6/113 that would be somewhat reasonable as an initial offer. That would still be 31m less than Scherzer was offered and would therefore seem to be a pretty sizable discount. My guess continues to be that he looked at Scherzer's offer as the market rate, and he would've taken something like 6/130, which would still be a discount compared to the deal Scherzer rejected.
You're not going to get a 30 year old 1a/2 starting pitcher with a track record of throwing 200+innings every year and performing in the postseason for 4/70. It's just not going to happen. You can say more than that is too risky and that's a legit position to take if you're running a team and don't want to take on that much exposure, but that doesn't change the fact that the market is what it is.
To me the Red Sox focused on the wrong part of Lester's statements earlier. He said he wanted to retire a Red Sox, but they focused on the hometown discount instead. He's not retiring at age 34. They needed to go longer years if they wanted an AAV discount, which would have signaled they wanted him around until he retired as well. I think if they'd gone 6/$98 or 4/$86, then there could have been a discussion about the appropriate discount for a longer-term deal, but instead they got greedy and asked for an AAV discount as well as a short-term contract.
What's market? $20m per? $22m? $25m?
4/70 = 17.5. So they offered one year less than what you'd expect a reasonable offer to be -- he'd get 6 so 5 is a discount.
They offered 87.5%, 79.5% or 70% on a per year basis depending on how Lester sees it. If you want to use total comp then they were in the 50-60% range most likely based on what Lester was thinking. Remember, we don't know what HE considers market and that's what is important to consider.
If you are asking 500k for your home and someone throws you 400k the second day you're on the market with lots of comps going for 520k then what are you going to do?
They wanted him under a hometown discount. They wanted to start super low and work their way up to that point. The result was not what they wanted, but that is the risk of this approach. I think the outcome they wanted was not attainable and they totally misread the situation.
To me, market rate means dropping a year or taking 5% off or something similar. You aren't running into Pedroia everyday.
4/70 = 17.5. So they offered one year less than what you'd expect a reasonable offer to be -- he'd get 6 so 5 is a discount.
They offered 87.5%, 79.5% or 70% on a per year basis depending on how Lester sees it. If you want to use total comp then they were in the 50-60% range most likely based on what Lester was thinking. Remember, we don't know what HE considers market and that's what is important to consider.
If you are asking 500k for your home and someone throws you 400k the second day you're on the market with lots of comps going for 520k then what are you going to do?
They wanted him under a hometown discount. They wanted to start super low and work their way up to that point. The result was not what they wanted, but that is the risk of this approach. I think the outcome they wanted was not attainable and they totally misread the situation.
To me, market rate means dropping a year or taking 5% off or something similar. You aren't running into Pedroia everyday.
This is one of those rare instances where I agree with P91. I think that's exactly what they did and it was a dumb strategy.
yecul said:
I honestly can't tell if you're specifically directing this at me. First off, they had already picked up his option so the idea that offering 4 years was really 5 years and therefore only 1 year less than he wanted doesn't fly. Second, it's pretty clear that market is at least 22m. Scherzer was offered 24m. They offered Lester 17.5m, or 16.6m if you want to count the option.
As for your question about my house, I wouldn't even counter if someone offered me 20% below asking when comps are going to more than I'm asking.
Or maybe I'm just overtired and we're on the same page, in which case you can disregard.
The Red Sox clearly mismanaged this but we still have incomplete information. Has Lester ever said what he's looking for? And I don't mean publically, but has he given the Red Sox a number? If the answer to that is no then you have to question how serious his comments in spring training were. If you tell the fans you want to stay and are willing to take less money then I think you owe it to them to give the team a number at some point. And that number should be less than FA value or you were full of shit.
I'm not a big fan of Scherzer in the long run (I think his arm will fall off), but his performance and Lester's weren't in the same universe over the past couple of years. Did Lester think the Sox were going to pay him based on the guy he was in 2009-10? Because that's the guy Scherzer was in 2012-13, and that's why the Tigers offered him all that money.glennhoffmania said:
I stand by what I said -- no one expected Lester to take the 4/70 offer, but if he was true insulted by it (and again, I'm skeptical that's true), then no deal was going to get done that would have been reasonable at the time.
Of course, a deal that was unreasonable then might look reasonable now in light of Lester's strong YTD performance, but I don't think it's fair to fault the FO for that.
maufman said:
Depends on how Tanaka's Tommy John recovery is and how long he is out. That nasty split certainly doesn't help and I could see it taking a while to get back.
I don't want to cherry pick comps or projections, but durable lefties can certainly age differently than pitchers overall. Cliff Lee was 29 when he suddenly *got it* after a lead up to that age much less successful than Lester. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lester's most valuable five year period in his career is 2014-2018, and he has shown a lot since he bottomed out under Bobby V. I don't think his renewed success is a short term mirage, nor do I see any reason to expect it not to last when healthy or for him to be a greater health risk over the next 5-6 years than even the most durable pitchers. Sabathia had much higher mileage at his age, but also the wear and tear of his unique physique.
Given the need for top notch pitching, his track record, and the other pieces in the pipeline, I have no problem overpaying in dollars or years on Lester compared to the conventional wisdom. We missed our window to get a better deal this winter, but in the process we also got a longer glimpse of his renewed performance and continued health so have slightly lower risk to assume with the eventual contract.
If that 4/70 comment by LL is in fact what happened, I don't think Lester's agent heard anything after that because he was laughing too loudly. What a joke.
Rudy Pemberton said:
It's not reasonable to say that either Garza or Jimenez is similar, unless you're taking a very broad view--and it wouldn't have been a whole lot more reasonable in February than it is now.
Really, Cole Hamels is quite a good comp. So was C.C. Sabathia at age 30, after his 2010 season. Both grade out a little better than Lester, but only a little. Here's how Lester, Sabathia-at-30, Hamels, Garza and Jimenez line up on a few career stats:
ERA+:
Hamels 123
Sabathia30 123
Lester 119
Jimenez 110
Garza 107
FIP:
Hamels 3.51
Sabathia30 3.58
Lester 3.61
Jimenez 3.85
Garza 3.93
rWAR per 30 starts:
Hamels 4.2
Sabathia30 4.0
Lester 3.8
Jimenez 2.7
Garza 2.2
The Sabathia comp might seem cautionary, except that Sabathia had almost 100 more starts and 600 more innings under his belt at that age than Lester has. Not to mention the extra pounds under his belt.
Not to mention that nobody allowed himself to be abused -- or "manned up", depending on your perspective -- as Sabathia did. There is no comp there. The guy routinely started on short rest, and frequently threw a ridiculous number of pitches, in high stakes games.
If someone is not inclined to post what Lester will require to sign, then fine. Just don't invoke Sabathia as the poster boy, for he isn't.
If someone is not inclined to post what Lester will require to sign, then fine. Just don't invoke Sabathia as the poster boy, for he isn't.
I'm really trying to understand but I don't. Lester is 6 months older than Scherzer so age isn't an issue. Even if I concede that Scherzer is better he was offered 6/144. I've suggested that 5/100 would've been a reasonable initial offer to Lester and maybe 6/120 gets it done. Why are you equating an initial offer of 5/100 with an initial offer of 6/144? I've never said that I think they should give Lester the amount that Scherzer wouldn't even accept.maufman said:
Yes. If you've made an offer that 1/2 of the public/media think is so bad it can't be true and another 2/5 think is a low-ball offer you probably screwed up.RedOctober3829 said:
I would regard SoSH as generally conservative when it comes to player contracts but the consensus was the deal would be in the 5/100-
6/120 range. There were a few posters suggesting the 5/90 range and barely anyone suggested anything near what the Red Sox offered.
If you actually want someone to stay - I am talking about every situation in life here - don't create a circumstance where they begin to envision leaving.
dcmissle said:
I only "invoked Sabathia"--along with Hamels--as a more reasonable comp for Lester, in terms of performance level to date, than Garza and Jimenez. The bit about comparative workload through age 30 was just to forestall somebody saying "ohmigod if Sabathia is a comp then stay away."
I'm really not sure what you're on about, as the Brits would say.
I certainly wasn't taking a run at you and should have phrased that better.Savin Hillbilly said:
In any case, the Shaughnessy piece is significant, I think. He and LL use each other in much the same way that Will McDonough and John Harrington used to dance together. There isn't a lot of mystery here anymore.
1. Yes, they offered 4 for 70.
2. It's understandable (though not necessarily defensible) how this came to be. Lester's numbers were not great; the FO is not lacking in confidence and was flush off an unexpected championship; so let's try to steal him.
"Contest Living" as one poster phrased it above. Or in Larry's own words -- the team not only contemplated an improvement in the offer, but a "significant" one.
3. Team Lester, understandably and shrewdly, would not play in this sandbox. And on the strength of a strong season, Lester is holding all the cards. The only thing that should give him any pause is the injury risk over the 13 or however many starts he has left this season.
The Shank piece reflects the team coming clean: yes we did play hard ball, yes it blew up in our faces, and no things don't look good.
Honesty is good. You should shoot straight with your fans.
My guess is that he's absolutely gone after FA starts and that the only way to sign him now is to offer 100% of last year's rates for a pitcher of his calibre. He'll offer protection against the wild inflation that's likely to kick in -- in return for security - but that's it.
In other words, the team has spent the home town discount, and did so by failing to engage him seriously early on.
In these circumstances, if they want him, I'd offer him MV right now as best that can be discerned, and if he doesn't take it, I'd trade him to the highest bidder, What's done is done.
If I ever had a serious deal to work out, dcmissle is the guy I'd want negotiating for me. He's been a voice of reason in this threat from the beginning.
Doubt I could afford him though.
Doubt I could afford him though.
dcmissle said:
Unfortunately, this all makes a lot of sense. So what's realistic now--6/130 or so?
I was just reading an old copy of the Maple Street Press Red Sox Annual and there's an article by Alex Speier on how Lester came to be drafted by the Red Sox. It's really interesting and explains how he was likely to be a first round pick way before the Red Sox had their first selection at #57 but he went through a dead arm period in high school that scared off some scouts. Anyway, they drafted him... and apparently this isn't the first time the Sox have jerked around with signing Jon Lester. I hadn't realized that the Red Sox barely signed him to his rookie deal. The process was drawn out and they barely got him before he enrolled at Arizona State. Hopefully these negotiations have similar results. They'll string him along for a little bit but end up getting something done before it's too late.
I also learned in the article that Jon Lester went to the same high school as Colorado Buffaloes QB Sefo Liufau. I'm a big Buffs fan as well and they'll play UMass this coming season.
I also learned in the article that Jon Lester went to the same high school as Colorado Buffaloes QB Sefo Liufau. I'm a big Buffs fan as well and they'll play UMass this coming season.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Even at 6/130 we'd still be getting a decent deal. He could command more on the open market, I'm sure of it.
IF (big if) Lester continues to pitch the way he has this year, 8/200, or any other crazy # is probably on the table in October, and it should be. That # is within his reach in FA. He'll get his money. Even if he pitches slightly less brilliantly, he'll still get his money. The question is, how much of a FA discount still exists? Or was that concept pissed away? If a 6/144-150 is still realistic, right now, can the Sox write that check? Should they? Can they afford to let him pitch for the MFYs, because thats probably where he'll end up.
The shame of this is LL, had to low-ball the guy. Lester probably would have done a 5-6 year deal at $20-22mm per in March.
The shame of this is LL, had to low-ball the guy. Lester probably would have done a 5-6 year deal at $20-22mm per in March.
bankshot1 said:
If you take Lester at his word, he said in ST that he'd expect a discount as he was a year away from being a FA. But now, that no longer applies.
Well, the lowball was particularly cynical, in that it came right after Lester made a genuine show of his sincerity and desire to stay: which then, from his perspective -- and who wouldn't feel this way, regardless of the money we're talking here -- was exploited rather than met with equal sincerity. He may take fewer dollars, at least as AAV, but I don't see him taking fewer years. He's going to make them commit to him as a lifetime Sox. Otherwise he's gone.
What it is, among other things, is a fascinating problem with major implications for our time horizon and team construction.
It's a commonly held belief, which I share, that the team is retooling and not rebuilding. So we're talking about a bridge year -- singular -- or two at most before it's right back in the hunt for a WS. I think this is ambitious but not unreasonable. It requires a bunch of kids to develop quickly into impact players. That's happened elsewhere, and in our own past.
But it also requires an "ace", for want of a better term, and I'd prefer for a bunch of unsentimental reasons to keep our own rather than hunt down somebody else's.
If you don't get that, you're talking about cultivating one of your own among a bunch of kids. In other words, kids have to come through on the mound AND in the field. If that happens, it's a bonanza, but I think it's expecting too damn much. And if it happens, you're probably adding a couple of years to the time horizon.
Implications for roster construction. Look at the thread with the Tulu discussion. Adding him would be great, and would hedge the risk of relying on so many young players. But it makes no damn sense at his age if you're not set on the mound -- especially since you'll have to empty your barn of good pitching prospects to get him.
It's a commonly held belief, which I share, that the team is retooling and not rebuilding. So we're talking about a bridge year -- singular -- or two at most before it's right back in the hunt for a WS. I think this is ambitious but not unreasonable. It requires a bunch of kids to develop quickly into impact players. That's happened elsewhere, and in our own past.
But it also requires an "ace", for want of a better term, and I'd prefer for a bunch of unsentimental reasons to keep our own rather than hunt down somebody else's.
If you don't get that, you're talking about cultivating one of your own among a bunch of kids. In other words, kids have to come through on the mound AND in the field. If that happens, it's a bonanza, but I think it's expecting too damn much. And if it happens, you're probably adding a couple of years to the time horizon.
Implications for roster construction. Look at the thread with the Tulu discussion. Adding him would be great, and would hedge the risk of relying on so many young players. But it makes no damn sense at his age if you're not set on the mound -- especially since you'll have to empty your barn of good pitching prospects to get him.
Since the 4/70 offer appears to be true, is it possible/ probable that LL made it with a blessing from JWH?someoneanywhere said:
If so, then Lester is probably gone, if not, then perhaps a chance he stays.
While JWH has said (my paraphrase) it's a young man's game, perhaps this season and possibly next have changed his mind a tad.
May well be. I can understand the rationale for taking a hard line and letting Lester (or any free agent) go in a vacuum. The problem is that this isn't a vacuum. It's really hard to imagine that there are alternative investments the Sox could make that would yield a better return. Scherzer will cost more and a draft pick. Realistic trade options, such as Price, would require giving up on some top prospects AND forking out the big money extension. It's true they have six starters the high minors that are all expected to have major league futures (De La Rosa, Workman, Barnes, Ranaudo, Owens, Johnson), but none are expected to be of Lester's caliber. Hard to believe their best option is letting him go.Plympton91 said:
Why not? The front office, with input from Farrell and Nieves, should be best positioned to know if Lester's strong second half was a hot streak or the result of fixing some mechanical issue that had been broken since late in 2011. The should have known the likelihood of Lester picking up where he left off in the postseason better than anyone.
We can mock Gammons all we want but he's got top sources. When he's saying the don't want to go long on Lester because of Sabathia, he getting that from top levels jf the organization using him to prepare Sox Nation for Lesger's departure.
They low balled Lester because low balling players who are 30+ is going to be team policy. I guess they're banking on a generation that grew up on Danfasy League baseball will be happy to root for a real team run on those same business only principles.
We can mock Gammons all we want but he's got top sources. When he's saying the don't want to go long on Lester because of Sabathia, he getting that from top levels jf the organization using him to prepare Sox Nation for Lesger's departure.
They low balled Lester because low balling players who are 30+ is going to be team policy. I guess they're banking on a generation that grew up on Danfasy League baseball will be happy to root for a real team run on those same business only principles.
I'm not as bullish on Lester as the majority on SoSH, but even I thought he'd fetch 6/120 if he were a free agent last winter. My thoughts about what an appropriate extension were like took this figure and discounted it to reflect that he was getting his money a year early. So I figured something like 6/100 or 6/105, and that's why I thought 5/83 (4/70 on top of the $13mm option) was a decent opening bid. If Lester found that insulting, he wasn't going to sign for anything reasonable.
His strong 2014 will obviously add to that price -- 6/120 has sailed, let alone a discount on that. You also need to account for year-to-year salary inflation, which is anyone's guess (10% is usually a good rule of thumb, but the relatively large crop of high-end SPs should moderate that somewhat).
Lumping it all together in unscientific fashion, my hunch is that someone will throw $140-150mm at Lester this winter. And at that price, I would move in another direction. But unlike Ellsbury, who I thought wasn't worth anywhere what the market said he was, it wouldn't take a massive discount for me to warm up to a Lester deal.
The X-factor we haven't discussed much in this thread is the FO's assessment of Lester's health. Lester has been durable, and that's a big reason he's expected to get a huge payday, but the Sox have a lot of private information about Lester's health. They certainly can handicap his likelihood of staying healthy better than we can; indeed, they probably have a better informed view than other bidders will have even after they review Lester's medical records. Now that the Sox won't be getting much of a discount, the decision whether to pay market value (or close to it) depends heavily on which way the FO's private information causes them to lean.
His strong 2014 will obviously add to that price -- 6/120 has sailed, let alone a discount on that. You also need to account for year-to-year salary inflation, which is anyone's guess (10% is usually a good rule of thumb, but the relatively large crop of high-end SPs should moderate that somewhat).
Lumping it all together in unscientific fashion, my hunch is that someone will throw $140-150mm at Lester this winter. And at that price, I would move in another direction. But unlike Ellsbury, who I thought wasn't worth anywhere what the market said he was, it wouldn't take a massive discount for me to warm up to a Lester deal.
The X-factor we haven't discussed much in this thread is the FO's assessment of Lester's health. Lester has been durable, and that's a big reason he's expected to get a huge payday, but the Sox have a lot of private information about Lester's health. They certainly can handicap his likelihood of staying healthy better than we can; indeed, they probably have a better informed view than other bidders will have even after they review Lester's medical records. Now that the Sox won't be getting much of a discount, the decision whether to pay market value (or close to it) depends heavily on which way the FO's private information causes them to lean.
Lester wanted a deal like Pedroia's so he could retire as a Red Sox. Staring at 4 years is a joke. Six is the absolute minimum
But he didn't want a deal like Pedroia's. Pedroia took a deal well below market. There has been no indication that Lester really was ever willing to do that.rundugrun said:
I think the read that the 4/70 deal was a complete misplay is interesting, albeit off by a bit.
This FO has shown over the course of the trios ownership that they have a strong aversion to long-term contracts (excepting Theo's spend-a-thon on Lackey, Gonzalez and Crawford). I suspect that when Cherrington got the Sox out of their mess via the Punto Trade, they realized that was probably a one-time get out jail free card. Its very likely that they made an organizational decision to never tether themselves to a risky long-term contract again. To me, its entirely possible that they made the calculated decision to let Lester walk before this process ever started.
This FO has shown over the course of the trios ownership that they have a strong aversion to long-term contracts (excepting Theo's spend-a-thon on Lackey, Gonzalez and Crawford). I suspect that when Cherrington got the Sox out of their mess via the Punto Trade, they realized that was probably a one-time get out jail free card. Its very likely that they made an organizational decision to never tether themselves to a risky long-term contract again. To me, its entirely possible that they made the calculated decision to let Lester walk before this process ever started.
Of course it's possible, and if he ends up signing elsewhere it's probably true.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
But the fact remains that we have a ton of young talent coming in and they aren't all going to work out and we can't really try to win a title with John Lackey, Clay Buchholz, and three guys who have never pitched a full season in the bigs.
We need at least one guy we can throw out there and feel some confidence that they're going to give us two hundred good innings.
Rasputin said:
And perhaps your FO has concluded that, in the interest of long-term viability, that the money it will cost to sign Lester is put to better use elsewhere. In other words, they have (or should have) a contingency plan to acquire pitching using some of those young assets.
Note that I am not saying this is smart or that we should have faith in the Sox brain-trust to execute. However, my take is that the 4/$70mm offer was made with the intention to miss rather than an opening gambit in a desired successful negotiation.
That's just a weird stance to take, IMO. If you don't want Lester back at any money or a discount you know he's not going to take, don't make an offer.
Obviously the 4/$70 offer looks bad, not only to the fans but also the other players. It's also incredibly disrespectful of everything Lester has done for the organization if, as you suggest, they made an offer so bad they knew he'd never take it. I can understand the rational you're suggesting, but it's just an incredibly strange direction to take.
Obviously the 4/$70 offer looks bad, not only to the fans but also the other players. It's also incredibly disrespectful of everything Lester has done for the organization if, as you suggest, they made an offer so bad they knew he'd never take it. I can understand the rational you're suggesting, but it's just an incredibly strange direction to take.
The far easier theory to belief is that the FO wanted to test how low they could go with Lester, and they went too low, and derailed the negotiations. If they weren't interested in a long-term deal, they could have said so, rather than putting out an intentionally low ball offer. The easiest theory to accept is that they screwed up.
I'm curious as to who people think would be a better fit, or bargain, without sacrificing meaningful quality than Lester. A trade for an Ace will cost a boatload of prospects, plus ace money, and a FA, is the same price as Lester, but untested here. So who's the guy that makes the rotation materially better?
I'm curious as to who people think would be a better fit, or bargain, without sacrificing meaningful quality than Lester. A trade for an Ace will cost a boatload of prospects, plus ace money, and a FA, is the same price as Lester, but untested here. So who's the guy that makes the rotation materially better?
MakMan44 said:
The reason you make a lowball offer is to signal to Lester's side that Boston isn't a serious bidder. Then he goes to FA and during that process, they can make a face-saving, but still below market, offer. If he somehow decides to take that, great. If not, he goes at a price the Sox were simply not willing to pay.
As to alternatives, I agree that it will be a problem for the Red Sox to replace Lester's production and I suspect they would too. However, if this read is correct, they are far more willing to bear that cost than a six year (or, if something crazy happens, longer) $20mm-something AAV contract that it would take to retain Lester.
As to them simply misreading the market, say what you will about the Red Sox management but collectively they are a pretty savvy group. For me, its far more believable that they decided long ago that Lester was going to cost too much to keep and that it was time to move to plan B versus them not having a handle on what it would take to keep him.
There isn't. That's why I'm convinced they will pony up for Lester. Even if they pay him close to market rate in dollars and years, it will still be cheaper. He'll need to know his true market though, so it won't happen until after the season is over. I'm sure the Yankees will help him figure it out. He'll go back to Boston with whatever offers he gets and still give them a discount. I'm guessing a discount on AAV, but not years. He loves Boston and will want a chance to retire there.bankshot1 said:
EvilEmpire said:
"virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30,” says Henry. “Yet teams continue to extravagantly overpay for players above the age of 30.”
Harry Hooper said:
Sure. But the Sox still have to put together a viable rotation. If their under 30 starting pitchers aren't good enough or the real talent is still down in the minors and isn't ready for the major leagues, what do they do? I think a large-market team can have a viable strategy to focus on players under 30 and still afford to take some calculated risks for positions of great need. A couple of big contracts aren't going to hurt the Sox. They just can't get carried away like the Yankees do and get boxed in.
How much do the Sox need a Lester-caliber starter to anchor the rotation next year? How much will it cost? How much would that cost constrain the Red Sox? When everything is said and done, I think Lester will still be the cheapest option available. Even if that price is higher than the Sox like.
Very happy to be wrong though.
Harry Hooper said:
This quote is lock-the-thread level telling. Now the question is whether they have the stones to trade him over the next two weeks.
It's one thing to say that you don't want to overpay players over 30, so hey let Lester go.
We still are left with:
1) If the answer isn't in potentially overpaid over-30 pitchers/players, how are they planning to put together a viable rotation and a better lineup next year?
2) How are they planning to spend the money that the fans have given them? How do they get to
$180Million without players like Lester?
As for "well this is their organizational philosophy,"
I have my doubts. I have great respect for what these owners have accomplished but their "organizational philosophy" seems to change with some regularity and there is evidence they are
sensitive to how the media portrays them and to NESN ratings. So let's not suddenly attribute to them some Belichickian level of cold-blooded internal consistency when it comes to roster construction.
We still are left with:
1) If the answer isn't in potentially overpaid over-30 pitchers/players, how are they planning to put together a viable rotation and a better lineup next year?
2) How are they planning to spend the money that the fans have given them? How do they get to
$180Million without players like Lester?
As for "well this is their organizational philosophy,"
I have my doubts. I have great respect for what these owners have accomplished but their "organizational philosophy" seems to change with some regularity and there is evidence they are
sensitive to how the media portrays them and to NESN ratings. So let's not suddenly attribute to them some Belichickian level of cold-blooded internal consistency when it comes to roster construction.
Very indicative. Also quite indicative that Henry pulled the strings on resigning Papi, etc.Harry Hooper said:
Hesitant to hang anyone over one quote, much less one who brought us 3 championships in 10 years. Henry is a good man. That said:threecy said:
1. He should know that running a team is not like running a hedge fund.
2. In no world is paying Lester worse than paying Lester money + prospects for a pitcher like Lester.
3. If he's going the "poor man's version" route, he should consult the Cards about bringing knives to the gunfight in the WS pitching wise (even though they won one of late, they lost two to the Sox) and maybe to Beane about the As recent trade.
4. If it's going to be kids uber alles -- keep all the pitching prospects, survival of fittest, hope a Lester emerges -- that will be very interesting and ballsy. I'll be riveted. But then you'd better guide your fans accordingly and circle 2017 rather than 2015 -- and also be prepared for the very real possibility that the ace never emerges.
- Status