Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
HEH- The Sox or Lester will not win many games when they get 1-hitted.JimD said:
You brought up Wainright as a Lester comp (btw, I also used Wainright as a comp in a deleted/lost post) and that Lester was well past his best years, presumably linking the two observations, and justifying the 4/70. I thought it funny and pertinent that that last two times these guys met, Lester was the better pitcher.
In any case, I'm reasonably sure that if the Sox really believe that Lester is a 4/70 guy, he'll be ex-Sox next year.
Quintanariffic said:
Regarding the bolded, we don't know that at all. For all we know, 4/70 was the opening offer and the offer left on the table when negotiations were "paused" is more like 5/90 or something in that ballpark. Nothing that's been reported has clarified when the offer was made and whether or not it is the most recent offer. And it's not in the best interest of either side to confirm/deny the report or to add additional information to it. It's reporters (and sports talk media) that have blown up one leaked number as if it is the end-all, be-all of the entire negotiation. There's no way that is the case.
How many of you would have thought 7/100 is too low of an offer for Pedroia last year? Look, there's no question that in a pure free-agent bidding war, Lester gets somewhere around 6/120 or more. But that's not what this is. This is a guy who said he was willing to take less to stay in Boston. And if the sides have to add a year to the deal and bump the AAV by a bit to end up at 5/95, then something will get done. I don't think this is a terrible offer at all, given the circumstances. I think it definitely indicates a hard line being driven by the Sox, but I also think it's well within reach of a deal by doing the small bumps I indicated before. Only question is whether the Sox will do a 5th year, since the AAV is within easy reach. If Lester wants a Scherzer deal, he's probably gone. That's the nature of the beast right now, and I don't necessarily blame the Sox on it either.
The Ms are valuable, and willing to spend. But the top two are established, with Paxton, Walker and whoever of Erasmo Ramirez and the suddenly interesting Roenis Elias seizes the last spot. While Hultzen works his way back. I wouldn't put it past them to show interest in Lester, and he does have some roots here (I'm in Seattle), but it only makes sense if the kids fall on their faces this year.HriniakPosterChild said:
glennhoffmania said:
He didn't say. Here is his exact quote:
I did a little bit of searching for a reference and couldn't find anything specific, other than a few other amorphous comments that signing long-term free agent high money starting pitching deals is risky.
As if one didn't know that already.
If the Red Sox are adopting an organizational philosophy of not locking them into long-term high money starting pitching contracts, it will be interesting to see how they play out. Particularly since there are more than a few teams that feel A-OK in giving them out.
SSS and all that….
First four games: 29.0 ip, 26 h, 7 er, 4 bb, 29 k, 2.17 era, .601 ops, 1.03 whip, 9.0 k/9
And everyone is saying that Lester is making a ton more money for his next contract.
Last two games: 11.2 ip, 16 h, 7 er, 7 bb, 14 k, 5.40 era, .949 ops, 1.97 whip, 10.8 k/9
Does this mean he's losing money for his next contract?
First four games: 29.0 ip, 26 h, 7 er, 4 bb, 29 k, 2.17 era, .601 ops, 1.03 whip, 9.0 k/9
And everyone is saying that Lester is making a ton more money for his next contract.
Last two games: 11.2 ip, 16 h, 7 er, 7 bb, 14 k, 5.40 era, .949 ops, 1.97 whip, 10.8 k/9
Does this mean he's losing money for his next contract?
No way. He's the same old Lester. Look at his game logs from last May and June:ivanvamp said:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=lestejo01&t=p&year=2013
And that season turned out pretty well. The people doing the actual negotiations won't be swayed by a few bad games.
To me Lester is looking for 6 or 7 years to ensure he basically finishes his career in Boston and will take a reasonable discount on AAV to get the family stability in the length. The Red Sox 4 year offer basically reaffirmed they they are going to run this like automatons. They've got the pitching depth to play hardball, so I expect that Lester is in his final season in Boston. Yeah laundry.
Yeah, so why can't he take a 4-5 year deal, then sign one more 2-3 year deal to finish his career? Is that asking too much? I mean, we are not talking about giving a 7 year deal to a 25 year old pitcher, and you have to admit there is an enormous amount of team risk to even do a 7 year deal with a younger pitcher? I don't mind following "automatic rules" if said rules include "don't sign ANY 31 year old pitchers to 7 year deals"....
It's interesting. Let's say the Sox end up drawing a line in the sand at, say, 4 years, $90 million, which comes to $22.5 million a year. That keeps Lester on the Sox through 2018, whereupon he becomes a free agent at age 35 (he turns 35 in January of 2019). If he's still fairly effective, he may be able to command another 3-year deal for about $60 million. Even if it's less than that - say, 3/51 - that would mean that over a 7-year period he would make $141 million. That's an AAV of $20.1 million. Does Lester have the confidence to think that he could get a second contract worth enough to make it a 7 year, $141 million total? If he pitches well, he could command more than 3/51 in that second contract. There are still plenty of good pitchers at that age in the majors, some of whom are making big, big dollars. If he pitches well during the next five years, he could potentially get a 4/100 deal (don't forget to consider inflation), which would mean that if he gambles on himself a little, (a) he's still walking away with a minimum of $90 million, but (b) he could potentially end up with $190 million.
So I know he wants the 6-7 year contract now, but if he takes "less" now, he might end up with a "mere" 6/120 instead of potentially making a lot, lot more.
EDIT: Of course, as I'm typing this out, TheYaz67 promptly makes my point for me.
So I know he wants the 6-7 year contract now, but if he takes "less" now, he might end up with a "mere" 6/120 instead of potentially making a lot, lot more.
EDIT: Of course, as I'm typing this out, TheYaz67 promptly makes my point for me.
If he goes to Free Agency, maybe he gets 6-$130 guaranteed. Why should the player be the one who has to gamble rather than the billionaire owner charging $250 a ticket.
Plympton91 said:
3 years ago, at the age of 29, Jered Weaver signed a 5 year/$85 million contract. When asked if he was worried about leaving money on the table, Weaver replied, "If $85 mil is not enough to take care of my family and generations to come, then I'm pretty stupid."
And Weaver is a Boras client. Some guys, having already made a a fortune off of baseball, consider other things, besides money, when it's time to re-up. Lester might be one of them, considering his relationship with the club during his illness, as well as the 2 championships he's won.
And I don't begrudge him a thing if he goes to the highest bidder, but I sure hope the Sox don't give him a 6/7 year deal at $20+ mil AAV.
I think Lesters relative inconsistency over the past 3 years is holding the Red Sox back from giving him what he wants. He absolutely can not have a season like last where where he was pretty mediocre for 3 months. 6 games is way to early to judge. Also, the high pitch count over his first 6 games bears watching. He has averaged almost 10 pitches more per start than last year through 6 games.
TheYaz67 said:
I think some players also look at how their contract affects the market for other players. Lester said something about not wanting to sign a deal that adversely impacts a teammate like Doubront down the road. Its all well and good to leave money on the table for personal reasons, but the MLBPA has generally frowned on players doing so in the past. It may be that salary levels have reached a point where players and MLBPA no longer care as much about this, which explains why MLBPA does not seem alarmed at the players smaller piece of the revenue pie since salaries are still increasing.
Sampo Gida said:
The other major unknown is what Lester is asking for. The contract Plympton through out above would be the largest contract ever for a pitcher Lester's age. Cot's lists the highest AAV for pitchers. Going down the list I don't see any pitchers Lester's age signing for more than 5 years, and it includes every pitcher contract over 12,500,000 per season.
Sampo Gida said:
"Mediocre for 3 months." is overstating his downswing. It was really just a stretch of 8 games, where he failed to get a QS in seven of them.
That said, I'm not sure how Lester projects as he gets past his physical prime. He has a lot to work with, but seems to struggle way too much during stretches where he only has 80% of his tool set working. In his defense, this year he's already had a good start or two lacking his best stuff. I'm sure the Sox have a well-thought projection on how gradual a decline he might experience. I've always liked Lester, but I always expected him to be at the top of the league, not second-tier. He's won over 100 games and I could see him winning 100 more, but most of those wins are going to come this year and the next 3.
While 5-$85 is certainly enough to take care of anyone's family, as Weaver said, who cares if he's taking $17m a year from the Angels owner who has an appreciating billion dollar asset adding to his wealth at a multiple of that every year. Why do so many people here openly root for the owners in salary negotiations?
Given that I view Lester more as a durable and dependable #2 than I do as an ace, I actually prefer the lower AAV and longer commitment. Rather than 4-$84, I'd offer 6-$105 and hope that was enough to keep him here, and if it wasn't then I'd call him out on what he wants. The Red Sox seem to want both ends of the spectrum though, a discount on AAV and a discount on length. That's being greedy. The lower AAV in the 6 year deal frees up the money for a quality middle reliever every year of the contract under the luxury tax/de facto salary cap, playing into the deep depth theme.
But, I think it is possible the Red Sox position comes down to managing the longer-run luxury tax threshold numbers. The penalties for exceeding the luxury tax, especially multiple seasons in a row, are now so punitive that anyone managing their team in an even remotely business-like fashion can't go over it lightly. If the Red Sox continue to be underbidding on expensive free agents, then maybe they know more about what the owners' strategy is going to be on the cap number when negotiations start next time. If the de facto cap -- every team but NYY and LAD are treating it is as such -- is going to stay relatively unchanged, then that explains the reluctance to go out well beyond 34 years old with Ellsbury and Lester. Dead money on what is effectively a hard cap can't be good, and so it will be interesting to see how the players union responds if it becomes clear both that the $189 threshold is a hard cap for all but two teams affecting the top free agents, at the same time draft pick compensation has been made the be all and end all of value on middle-tier free agents. Maybe this long run of labor peace will be broken, unfortunately.
This is another case where I hope the union is able to win. The last thing I want is for baseball to become as sclerotic as the NBA, where a single bad decision can hamstring you for a decade and set up a strong incentive for a team ownership to mimic the strategy of the White Sox players in the 1919 World Series, as the Celtics did this year. Worse yet would be the NFL model, where I need a new lineup card every half season in order to figure out who's playing where and where the problem is most acute for the good teams.
Given that I view Lester more as a durable and dependable #2 than I do as an ace, I actually prefer the lower AAV and longer commitment. Rather than 4-$84, I'd offer 6-$105 and hope that was enough to keep him here, and if it wasn't then I'd call him out on what he wants. The Red Sox seem to want both ends of the spectrum though, a discount on AAV and a discount on length. That's being greedy. The lower AAV in the 6 year deal frees up the money for a quality middle reliever every year of the contract under the luxury tax/de facto salary cap, playing into the deep depth theme.
But, I think it is possible the Red Sox position comes down to managing the longer-run luxury tax threshold numbers. The penalties for exceeding the luxury tax, especially multiple seasons in a row, are now so punitive that anyone managing their team in an even remotely business-like fashion can't go over it lightly. If the Red Sox continue to be underbidding on expensive free agents, then maybe they know more about what the owners' strategy is going to be on the cap number when negotiations start next time. If the de facto cap -- every team but NYY and LAD are treating it is as such -- is going to stay relatively unchanged, then that explains the reluctance to go out well beyond 34 years old with Ellsbury and Lester. Dead money on what is effectively a hard cap can't be good, and so it will be interesting to see how the players union responds if it becomes clear both that the $189 threshold is a hard cap for all but two teams affecting the top free agents, at the same time draft pick compensation has been made the be all and end all of value on middle-tier free agents. Maybe this long run of labor peace will be broken, unfortunately.
This is another case where I hope the union is able to win. The last thing I want is for baseball to become as sclerotic as the NBA, where a single bad decision can hamstring you for a decade and set up a strong incentive for a team ownership to mimic the strategy of the White Sox players in the 1919 World Series, as the Celtics did this year. Worse yet would be the NFL model, where I need a new lineup card every half season in order to figure out who's playing where and where the problem is most acute for the good teams.
Plympton91 said:
I certainly don't root for the owners. I'd just rather see the players get more money in their prime than those past their prime collecting dust and mega-bucks while clogging up the roster. If Cliff Lee is available this summer, and is still pitching at the top of the league, then I have no problem with the Sox trading for his entire salary. I'd rather see it the norm for a pitcher like Lester to be offered $75/3 yrs, since that would be both a reward for his past services, and have at least some correlation between AAV and performance value. But we know that wouldn't get him signed because teams are willing to give more money overall, and stretch it out over more years. I don't want to see the Red Sox end up like the Phillies.
But what destroys a team is when they get stuck with the back end years of a contract and the team loses flexibility. It's a joke if a franchise commits to scouting, drafting and developing prospects and then clogs up the big club with long-term deals.
Plympton91 said:
No one roots for the owners. We presume there is some budget, and more money allocated to one player means less for the rest of the team. I'd love for Lester to take more of John Henry's money, but not at the expense of forcing the front office to skimp on the rest of the roster.
I think it's certainly too early to decide if Lester is making or losing himself money with each start. The far more important thing for Lester is staying healthy. If he has a typical Lester-type season, and is completely healthy, he will get a better offer and make more money than he would have by signing before the season. This is because the team obviously expects a discount on an extension since they are paying for his services a year in advance, and taking on all the injury risk of that year before the extension kicks in.
Sure, if Lester wins the Cy Young or completely collapses, that will change his FA contract. But those are unlikely scenarios. Lester isn't betting on his performance nearly as much as he is betting his elbow and shoulder hold up for 30 more starts. That's always a dicey proposition for a pitcher, and why if I were him, I'd be tempted to sign a reasonable extension sooner rather than later (though reasonable minds can certainly differ on what constitutes "reasonable", maybe there has been no reasonable offer yet).
gammoseditor said:
I am not sure Lester is looking for more than 5 years, but I suspect he wants to be north of a 20 million AAV. 4/70, if that's what they offered, is not even Lackey money (and he was Lesters age with a history of elbow problems) , and that was 4 years ago and salaries have inflated. Of course, he did say he was prepared to give a discount.
radsoxfan said:
Budgets are arbitrarily set by the owners, and owners tend to favor budgets which maximize
profits. They are not some physical law of nature that can not be breached. :lol:
Its interesting that JWH recently said he thought the benefits of staying under the threshold were not as great as he expected, suggesting that the threshold may not be
a barrier that can not be breached in the future.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/02/19/principal-owner-john-henry-on-red-sox-operating-model-smart-spending-and-the-quest-for-a-fourth-title/
radsoxfan said:
Sampo Gida said:
As I see it, the time to root for the players is in CBA negotiations. Within the system once established, you want your GM to get value.
Sampo Gida said:
Of course budgets can be breached, that's not the point. Unless you assume there will be no limit on spending whatsoever, all things being equal, fans should prefer that a player signs a cheaper contract. Of course we can't know for sure how that extra money will be spent, or if it will spent at all. But the owner having more money is good for fans. I root for the most team friendly contract in every single one of these negotiations, without fail.
Cha-Ching.
8 innings. 1 hit (a bloop single). 2 walks. 15 strikeouts. No runs. Absolutely dominating performance against the best team in the AL thus far in the season.
2.59 era and he leads the league in strikeouts. 6/1 K/BB ratio.
Starting to look like a mistake not signing him this Spring.
8 innings. 1 hit (a bloop single). 2 walks. 15 strikeouts. No runs. Absolutely dominating performance against the best team in the AL thus far in the season.
2.59 era and he leads the league in strikeouts. 6/1 K/BB ratio.
Starting to look like a mistake not signing him this Spring.
My gut says the Sox are willing to pay him market value if he proves he's worth it.
Thinking last season he might have turned the corner into a true #1.
Thinking last season he might have turned the corner into a true #1.
bosockboy said:
Why do you think they will get the chance to pay him market value? If he gets through the season healthy, it would be very unusual for him not to listen to offers from other clubs.
And the Yankees have a constitutional right to exceed any Red Sox offer.
Lester will find out what his market value is in the off-season. Then we will find out if the Sox discount is still in effect, or if they pissed it away, with the 4/70 low-ball offer.HriniakPosterChild said:
bankshot1 said:
Another way of saying that: we will find out if Lester and his agent are rational economic actors.
I think I know the answer. It will suck to see Jon Lester in pinstripes. For me, it will be way worse than Ellsbury.
Cross-posting from the game thread:
Lester's 15 Ks ties the franchise single-game record for left-handers, set by Mickey McDermott on July 28, 1951 vs the Indians. Thing is, that game 63 years ago went 16 innings, and Mickey went the distance. So for 9-innings max, Lester now stands alone.
Full list here, and there's a whole lotta Jon already on it.
Lester's 15 Ks ties the franchise single-game record for left-handers, set by Mickey McDermott on July 28, 1951 vs the Indians. Thing is, that game 63 years ago went 16 innings, and Mickey went the distance. So for 9-innings max, Lester now stands alone.
Full list here, and there's a whole lotta Jon already on it.
I think this point is well taken. Sports owners' near-universal tendency to piss and moan about how much money they are losing is one of the more disgusting aspects of professional sports.Plympton91 said:
However...
There is a sort of zero-sum element to it. If owners intend to spend to the lux tax threshhold and not beyond (as Sox owners seem to since the Punto deal), then every extra million spent on Lester is a million less on the rest of the roster.
Edit: Like an idiot, I did not finish reading your post before I replied. I think 6, $105 seems like a reasonable offer. What about the other direction; say 4, $92 or something?
Would you guys offer him 4yr/$100M? That's $25M per season. The way I see it we're going to HAVE to flirt with $100M territory in order to re-sign him, I feel that's a given. Its quite a short term, we pay more in order to have less to worry about as Lester gets older.
Bone Chips said:
And his combined stats of his 2 previous starts were 0-2, 5.40 ERA and a .949 OPSA.
Yesterday was obviously a great game, but 2 starts ago he got smoked by the Yankees and was mediocre against the Blue Jays. So, I doubt the Red Sox will be reactionary with one game and see just yesterday and regret not signing him.
In evaluating Lester you have to deduct for his defense and his inability to control the running game.he is a very good pitcher but he does have flaws that most lefhanders don't have. what percent of his value this affects is up to the Red Sox to address but it is a factor.pdub said:
I would go 5/ 110M
NDame616 said:
This is what happens. No pitcher is dominating the whole way through the season. Pedro Martinez in 1999 had a two-game stretch with an ERA of 7.71.
It's way too early to characterize Lester's 2014, but this morning he woke up one of the top five pitchers in the league by most of the saber-y stats, along with Tanaka, Price, Scherzer and Hernandez. Lester is best by FIP, 4th by xFIP and SIERA, 2nd by tERA. Obviously he would have ranked lower in those columns before yesterday, and may drop again, but it's not as if the other guys' numbers are legitimate and his aren't. It's early for everybody.
And for the year he's leading the league in IP, K and FIP.NDame616 said:
He's putting together an excellent season. Since Farrell came back he has 40 starts with a 3.54 ERA. Count the postseason and his ERA is 3.31 in 45 starts. That's looking to be in line with his performance from 2008-2011 and it's looking more and more like 2012 was an aberration. If the aberration was partially or completely due to Bobby V and Curt Young that's even more reason to re-sign him since Valentine isn't going to be allowed within 50 miles of Fenway.
There's a lot of people in the Giancarlo thread talking about how the Sox have no commitments after 2015 except Pedroia and wondering what they will spend their budget on. While Bradley, Bogaerts, and hopefully Middlebrooks are likely candidates, they'll still have a lot of space and I think we have the perfect candidate in Lester.
It will piss me off majorly if Lester ends up in the Urinal. But the MFY got a taste and need for lefties in that park (this can not be stressed enough) , and they got the dough, and he was all but invited by the Sox to smell the FA market.HriniakPosterChild said:
IMO if he was a FA right now he's looking at a deal similar to the one Scherzer passed on. Someone will go 6/130-145 for Jon Lester ($22-24MM AAV) I don't think the Sox will to the upper end of that range. Again it depends on the "discount", the size of the discount, and whether its still available to them.
Nope. Not until next year, but he'll certainly be on the trade and sign market this offseason. The Yankees may have the beginning of an offer if Sanchez has a great season, but I don't know of they'll really be serious competitors. Plus Tampa has never been keen on trading within the division, so the Yankees and Red Sox would have to overpay.pdub said:
When you cut right through it, the Red Sox must have a fundamental disagreement with Lester as to his worth, other wise he'd be signed. Baring injury, the Red Sox have a pretty strong idea who Lester is at this point and he them. There isn't much in the way of new information coming. And that he isn't signed is surprising to me. I'd think with all the money coming off the books, the farm system bursting at the seams (read: cheap players coming in some for or other), and the obvious need for good pitching and high quality personalities in the clubhouse, that the Sox would've signed Lester yesterday. Instead it looks like they're going to let him walk. If he gets to free agency, it is inconceivable to me that he ends up back in Boston. (Why would the Sox pay market prices for him in six months when they can pay much less (presumably) now?) You can make an argument (and it's certainly been made here) that not paying for Lester's mid-30s is the better option, but at this point I'm extremely pessimistic about Lester staying in Boston. And that makes me a sad unicorn.
pdub said:
Plympton91 said:
This is Price's third year of arbitration, (he was a Super 2) but his contract was a it odd in that it allowed him to void years of his initial major league contract (which he signed when drafted) and opt for arbitration instead. It's worded "in any year he is arbitration eligible" though, so I'm pretty sure this is the last season of control the Rays have over him, so he will probably be available at the deadline and should be a free agent this winter.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
He voided that initial deal (which was a six-year deal ending in 2012 anyway) after the 2011 season, opting for arbitration instead (got $4.35M instead of the $1.5M the contract guaranteed). He is now treated as any other player with less than six years of service time. He is arb-eligible after this season, but is not a free agent until after next season.
Based on Cots, anyway.
Here are the suggested offers that I found in this thread: 15M/year(FanSinceBoggs); 5/100 "is the floor" (bombdiggz); 16.5Mx5-6 yrs (Papi's Fan); 5/100-110 but that's probably not enough (Ed Hillel); 6/100 (Maufman); 6/120 (jimbobim); FO will offer 16-18Mx4-5 yrs (C4CRVT, who seems to have been correct); "his market starts at 6/120-130"; 5-6 years @20-25M (bankshot); 4/80 "is a good starting point" (Stanley Steamer); under 6/120 (Toe Nash); 5/100 (Beantownldah); 6/120 (ivanvamp); 5/110 (Morgan's Magic Snowplow); 5/90, later amended to "between 5/100 and 6/150" (koufax37); 5/100-6/120 (keninten); 6/111 (Drek717); "Near Scherzer's"rejected offer of 6/144 (me, in a fit of generosity with other people's money); 5/90 (radsoxfan); 5/90 or 6/105 or 6/112 (Plympton91);5/90 in one post, would "consider" 5/120 in another (The Boomer); 6/125 (FredCDobbs) 5/90-100 (Savin Hillbilly); 5/100 (Minneapolis Millers); 17-18AAV (Yaz$Ever); 5/100 (DennyDoyle'sBall; 5/100 (JoshV02); 5/80 (Hoplite); worth 5/100, maybe takes 5/80 (Sampo Gida); 5/100 (donut ogre); 6/110 (Apisth); 5/110 (pdub) 16-17AAV (benhogan); 5/85 is homedownt discount and 5/110 is FA value (gammoseditor); 5/100 pokey_reese; 5/100 (nvalvo); 6 years, seems to suggest 6/120 (glenhoffmania); 5/110 (Doctor G); 5/100 (Rudy Pemberton).
Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's point of view. There are a bunch in the under 15-19 Million camp, and a couple in the very high range (including me), but the general consensus seems to be that a signing at 5/100 or perhaps slightly above would make most of the board happy and is generally expected.
Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's point of view. There are a bunch in the under 15-19 Million camp, and a couple in the very high range (including me), but the general consensus seems to be that a signing at 5/100 or perhaps slightly above would make most of the board happy and is generally expected.
JimD said:
Lester indicated that he was willing to do what Pedroia did: sign a long term deal at a discount in exchange for the team's assuming injury risk before he became available to the highest bidder.
Once the player reaches free agency in good health and has to decline a firm offer for many millions more from NYY to stay in Boston, the Sox do not get a do-over.
snowmanny said:
5/$100 may make the board happy - and perhaps even the Red Sox brass - but I doubt highly that is an offer Jon Lester even thinks about. If I am Jon Lester, and presuming I am hearing about all of the money that is sloshing through the system these days, I'm thinking that someone is going to offer me a seven year deal.
After all, it only takes one.
- Status