Extending Lester
- Thread starter The Talented Allen Ripley
- Start date
- Status
It wasn`t that fun but I understand your point. Of course it is all speculation on my part but I`m basing it on the contracts I`m seeing signed this winter(Colon and Feldman). Plus the new TV deal which is helping small market teams. Having more teams able to bid might raise salaries. The big market teams also get more money and can also bid higher. Plus I`m not sure how the luxury tax and CBT will help smaller teams in the bidding.Sprowl said:
I`ve rarely wanted to post on the main board because my points usually do get posted by someone with better writing and communication skills. Some of the lurkers drive me nuts on the main board. With the board slowing in the off season I post more in the off season than during the season.
What other money is in the market from small market teams and so forth doesn't matter all that much if Lester gets to free agency healthy and the Yankees decide that they prefer him to Scherzer to fill Kuroda's #2 spot and salary in the rotation. His AAV will be in the 20's.
Agreed. I`m just saying in reference to the small market teams, that they could cause an increase because of their ability now to spend money.snowmanny said:
If the Yankees stay under the cap this year, I would think it would be hard to outbid them on anyone they target next winter. They`ll need pitching and seem to like going after exSox stars. The way the Sox are being fiscally responsible and young players on the way, It seems taking a chance on our own players is a better way to go than free agents who haven`t played in Boston.
Sprowl said:
Basically, my reservation regarding Lester is that in the past couple of years he's gone through a lot of ups and downs. There's no guarantee he won't do the same in the future.
I think we're in the dark about a lot of Lester's actual approach over time. The best scenario is that Lester somehow "fixed" his issues in the second half of the year. But if that's so, why the dip early on in the season after his initial excellence? http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=lestejo01&t=p&year=2013
Because he got stronger as he went? Because whatever Farrell and Nieves told him took that long to sink in? Because there's something about Lester that makes it hard to find and sustain his "sweet" spot in terms of mechanics? Was there a hidden or unreported nagging injury that got cleared up? (And is it chronic or not?)
Granted, I'd like him back, as he's a great pitcher, but unless I knew exactly why Lester is yo-yoing, I'd be leery of carving out a "tip-top/ace player" chunk of organizational resource pie and putting on Lester's plate.
I wouldn't resign Lester at this time--let's see how he does in 2014. Kershaw is four years younger; Bailey is two years younger; Masterson is one year younger; and Scherzer is younger by a few months. If the Red Sox lose Lester to free agency, who really cares. The Red Sox can sign a comparable, younger pitcher to replace him. And if the Dodgers don't extend Kershaw, and it is not clear that they will, I would want the Red Sox to be all in on him.
I would feel a little differently if next year's free agent market didn't contain so many excellent starters. Bailey and Masterson will most likely be on the market; Scherzer's agent is Boras; and so far the Dodgers and Kershaw have not been able to agree on a long term deal.
Kershaw will command a huge contract, but I might support giving him 200+ million over a 100+ million contract for Lester.
I would feel a little differently if next year's free agent market didn't contain so many excellent starters. Bailey and Masterson will most likely be on the market; Scherzer's agent is Boras; and so far the Dodgers and Kershaw have not been able to agree on a long term deal.
Kershaw will command a huge contract, but I might support giving him 200+ million over a 100+ million contract for Lester.
I disagree about Kershaw. I do agree that giving him a 7/180 deal is better than a 5/120 to Lester. But there is such little chance of the Sox landing him. LA has proven they are willing to spend stupid money. Why wouldn't they spend stupid money on the best pitcher in the game? The only way he leaves is if they randomly decide to cut payroll.
When was the last time they were all in on a big pitcher? DiceK? Aside from these pitchers not hitting FA like they used to, the Sox (from outward appearances) barely talked with Sabathia, and their top pitching signing has been Lackey. The Sox philosophy seems to make a run at a $100M+ SP highly unlikely IMO.FanSinceBoggs said:
Even if the Red Sox don't pursue Kershaw, who could end up signing with the Yankees, Bailey and Masterson are intriguing options. How convinced are we that Lester will be a better pitcher than Bailey and Masterson over the next five years? And the Red Sox would also have the option of pursuing Max Scherzer (presumably) who has been a significantly better pitcher than Lester over the last two seasons and has less wear and tear on his arm. True, Scherzer will cost more money than Lester, but that extra money might be worth the upgrade.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I think you're overestimating the ease with which the "Red Sox can sign a comparable, younger pitcher to replace him". Some of those guys might sign extensions, and for those that don't, you have to have the highest offer out of 29 other teams. It's very likely none of those guys will end up on the Red Sox, even if the FO wants them.
Having said that, giving Lester an extension now is still pretty risky. Guaranteeing any pitcher a significant salary in the future, before they have proven they are healthy at that point, carries a lot of risk. A ton can happen in 200 innings to a pitcher's arm. If Lester is willing to take a significant discount to mitigate the risk, the Red Sox should certainly explore it. But if he wants close to FA market value, no thanks.
A FA contract is risky enough, but in that situation you have 2 additional factors:
1. You know he is healthy (or at least know his medical status) when the contract starts
2. Any other team can sign the pitcher, so you have to bid against them
I wouldn't be in a huge rush to buy high on Lester after his awesome postseason and give him some FA market rate contract in the 120+ range. If he's looking to cash in like that, I'd let the season play itself out and see how it goes (while accepting there is a chance you can't get a comparable or better replacement if he leaves).
Kind of tiresome sometimes the way people talk about key Red Sox players like Lester as a commodity, or a stock. OK, AAPL has had its run, what can we buy to take its place in the portfolio when we sell it? Lester is home grown, post season hero, etc., etc. Trot him out of here, who cares. You lose Ellsbury to the Yankees, Lester next would be the second kick in the balls. I know it's a business but certain guys need to be kept when at all possible. And Kershaw leave the Dodgers? No way.
All things being equal, or at least very close to equal, I'm all for keeping the home grown guys if you can. But I think the FO needs to be keep their emotions in check, and make the best long term decisions for the franchise that they can.
As a fan, I prefer good management and winning games to having home grown players I'm more familiar with. If you can do both, great. But if you are worried that you can't, you have to be willing to move on.
Obviously some people feel differently, but I hope the FO doesn't.
As a fan, I prefer good management and winning games to having home grown players I'm more familiar with. If you can do both, great. But if you are worried that you can't, you have to be willing to move on.
Obviously some people feel differently, but I hope the FO doesn't.
radsoxfan said:
It's the old 'anyone can DH, there are tons of guys out there who can OPS .850 and hit 30 dingers' until you look and find that's really not the case.
Anyways, Lester isn't the sexiest option but he has been consistently great in a tough environment and division. He's proven himself on the big stage and the FO knows every nook and cranny inside his shoulder and elbow. He won't be what he was in 2008 but a guy that can give you 200IP of high 3 to low 4 ERA in the AL East is pretty valuable.
Yeah, I'll second that, Al. It's not about imagining who we could have who is better than Lester. It's about taking this opportunity, before his last season starts (or early in the season), and finding a deal that works for everyone. We know he likes Boston and can handle the big stage. We know he is one of the more durable SPs out there. And we know the range of his performances. It is likely a chance to pay a bit less than what he'd command on the open market. Seems like close to a sure thing that it gets done sooner or later.
All true, and I can't deny that bringing in those 8 guys last year (was it 8?) and none of them superstars, wasn't huge in winning it all. Hope they find a way with Lester that doesn't involve getting all the way to bidding against New York.radsoxfan said:
This doesn't hold water. Kershaw only threw over 110 pitches last year 7 times. He went over 120 just once. There were 26 pitchers who had more games >110 pitches. He went 100 pitches a lot but that was because he was good.rembrat said:
He throws a lot of innings but that is also because he is good; not because he is being abused. He averaged 14.5 pitches per inning (3rd-lowest in MLB) which is amazing for someone who strikes out so many batters.
He's also made 30 starts or more in each of the last 5 years and hasn't missed a start since his second year. Any pitcher is an injury risk but I don't see any warning flags with Kershaw and his durability thus far is a big mark in his favor. If you don't think they should ever sign a 27-yo pitcher to big money then OK, but we're not talking about Mark Prior here.
rembrat said:
I definitely agree thats pretty valuable. And I would very much like the Red Sox to sign him long term. I just don't know if it's 9 figures guaranteed valuable, a year in advance.
FWIW, I'm think it's totally reasonable to pay some premium for guys who have performed in Boston, are good in the clubhouse, have "intangibles", or whatever you wanna call it. But at the end of the day, even that stuff has a price. If you think that stuff ends up being worth a 10% premium to your on field assessment, then you should tack that on and extend yourself for those kind of players.
If in a vacuum, the FO would go to 5/80 for Lester on an extension, but is willing to extend that to 5/90 because of the intangible fudge factor, that works for me. But you still have to set some limit and stick to it, even if you risk losing your home grown players.
I like extending Lester at something resembling a discount from the market rate (even if it only amounts to a million or two per season) versus paying full freight for a free agent who has been pitching his entire career elsewhere. For one, Lester is the pitcher you know, and not just in terms of what he gives you on the mound but everything off the field too...health especially. They have monitored his every baseball activity since the day they drafted him. That kind of data makes it a bit more comfortable to extend him through age 35-36 rather than to sign a Kershaw or Bailey to a similar length or longer contract when they have zero to go on (medical records only tell you so much).
SSS and all, but three free agents that they have tendered long term contracts (3 or more years) to in the past 10 or so years have ended up under the knife before the end of the deal: Clement, Lackey, Matsuzaka. And it's not as though the long-term and expensive acquisitions they've made through trade weren't somewhat damaged goods as well (Schilling, Beckett) even if they ultimately paid off in the end (two rings).
I think that with pitching in particular, signing the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, especially when we're talking upper tier salaries.
SSS and all, but three free agents that they have tendered long term contracts (3 or more years) to in the past 10 or so years have ended up under the knife before the end of the deal: Clement, Lackey, Matsuzaka. And it's not as though the long-term and expensive acquisitions they've made through trade weren't somewhat damaged goods as well (Schilling, Beckett) even if they ultimately paid off in the end (two rings).
I think that with pitching in particular, signing the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, especially when we're talking upper tier salaries.
To me, it's not about what other top notch pitchers are out there better than Lester, the reason I'd want them to wait is to give the AAA guys more time so that we can see exactly how many of them are going to develop into major league rotation pitchers. If none or one of them pan out, they're going to need Lester a lot more than if two or three of them turn into good to great pitchers.Stanley Steamer said:
See I disagree with this. Lester last year got back to the pitcher that we saw before Farrell left. If Lester pounds the zone and throws strikes he will succeed more often than not. I think Curt Young got too cute with him and tried to make him a completely different pitcher. McClure only tinkered with the Curt Young version of Lester which was half the pitcher the original version of Lester was. Changing pitching coaches means a change in organizational position routine, philosophy etc...not unlike say changing an offensive coordinator in the NFL and having to learn entirely new schemes etc. Certain coaches have ways they like to do these things and I think Lester just listened to way too many people and we saw the results.NoXInNixon said:
He's a homegrown lefty that throws strikes on a regular basis, doesn't have an obscene amount of innings on his arm, and has more than earned his two rings. I see him as our version of Andy Pettitte to be honest. You can feel comfortable with him giving you 6-7 innings and keeping your team in the game. Those guys are invaluable. Is he worth $20 mil a year? No but on this open market he is certainly worth 6/110. If you can get him for the same contract Sanchez signed for last year then do it. None of the prospects in AAA are locks to become his replacement. Anyone here remember the Mets and Generation K?
The above reasoning is very sound and I agree with all of it. The system has a bunch of pitching talent , but its hard to argue they can experience no drop off between Lester and one of those guys for the next 3-4 years. In the bigger picture they have a very healthy farm system stocked with exciting arms. However, it should be quickly remembered that Pedroia and particularly Ortiz are on the older side. They expect X to contribute with a middle order type of bat and if he's Manny Machado 2.0 their lineup is probably fine for next year. I still think It would make a lot of sense to trade one or two of those young arms for a controllable high upside bat to further help the lineup but Ben really doesn't like to trade prospects which is probably a good thing.
Additionally, Lester's inconsistency has ranged from really high performance to frustrating league average. I don't see him turning into a Barry Zito type deal.
Additionally, Lester's inconsistency has ranged from really high performance to frustrating league average. I don't see him turning into a Barry Zito type deal.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Concur with this. This sports season has been a very striking lesson for me in terms of the importance of coaching, chemistry, and other dreaded intangibles that defy any kind of analytical rigor. The injury risk for signing a top tier pitcher into his mid/late 30s is going to be a constant, whether it happens to be Lester, Masterson, Kershaw, or any other available pitcher. I'd consider the injury risk to be a wash. That leaves the performance risk as the top issue to analyze. Lester's potential is a known quantity in Boston, and the current coaching staff's ability to bring that performance out of him seems to be fairly well established, despite periodic up and downs during 2013. It seems that giving him an extended All-Star Break helped significantly with his 2nd half performance, but it is worth noting that the coaching staff seemed to know to give him the right length of a break at the right time. Perhaps they were just lucky, but we have some confidence in the fact that the Lester-Farrell-Nieves combo can work, in Boston specifically, even if it won't necessarily always work, and that's a degree of confidence that we don't have with any of the other potential FA pitchers on the market. The devil we know, indeed.
NoXInNixon said:
Let's keep in mind the development curves for Lester and Buchholz, who would presumably represent the best case scenarios for any of the current crop of AAA pitching talent. Jon Lester didn't become Jon MF Lester until 2008, year 3 of his MLB exposure. Clay Buchholz didn't give the Red Sox that one great and mostly complete season until 2010, which was his 4th season of MLB exposure. Aside from Felix Doubront, who I don't think you were counting when you mention the current AAA guys, this coming season alone isn't going to be enough of a sample size to tell the organization much about what the full MLB capabilities are for the next generation, so I strongly disagree with the plan to use this season's performance by the youngsters at either AAA or MLB to gauge whether or not Jon Lester is worth extending. The Lester decision must be made before anyone will have enough data to decide what the next generation is capable of producing.
JMDurron said:
This wasn't the crux of your point, but I wanted to take a moment to address it. There is a lot of this floating around the main board right now, and it's completely understandable as the group of guys who just won a title look like the best example of chemistry and intangibles you can possibly imagine. I want to point out, however, that the driving forces behind the championship run are likely a bit more easy to analyze than you infer here.
I will once again point to Rev's thread from a few months ago. The Red Sox had a very specific plan to create a relentless offense and a ton of depth to bring the floor way up while not really getting hung up on raising the ceiling for their performance on the field. Shallower lows meant more consistency (never more than 3 losses in a row) and what looked like an incredibly resilient team. Having no below average hitters on the 25 man roster going into the playoffs meant there were no easy at bats. Trading for Jake Peavy meant having an extremely deep rotation even if Buchholz wasn't 100%. Stockpiling relievers in the off season meant ensuring a solid bullpen even if injuries ripped away our first two closers.
I'm not arguing that chemistry had nothing to do with the title or that we can only use quantitative approaches to analyzing the game, but I do think that the quantitative data does get downplayed a bit more than it should.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
The counterpoint to that would be from Farrell's comments from the seminar, where I believe he mentioned that they targeted players that had a certain "top 2" priorities, where Farrell initially hinted at 3 priorities but didn't want to go into the (presumed) "God factor", before paring back down to 2. I get the analytical portions of the plan, and I enjoyed the discussions that rev linked to when they originally happened during the season, but the impact of the personality profiles of the players that they tried to acquire and the impact of Farrell (and staff) compared to Valentine (and staff) is pretty much impossible to either quantify or ignore.
Let's call it "Coaching, Chemistry, and Intangibles", or CCI if you will. I don't know whether to attribute the resiliency of the team to the relentless offense, CCI changes, or both in some unknowable proportions. I do know that CCI is a significantly larger factor in overall team performance than I had wanted to think it was back in 2012, after seeing multiple teams (another team of mine in a completely unrelated sport) make massive coaching changes, relatively mild personnel changes, and then go from being in the bottom of their leagues to the top of it. Jake Peavy seemed to be as much of a fit personality wise as he was from a performance standpoint, and somehow I doubt that either factor was ignored when it came to acquiring him.
radsoxfan said:
Scherzer is a Boras client. As we know, Boras clients typically test the market to maximize their value. The Indians and Reds are trying to win now and so even though Masterson has been involved in trade rumors, I'm expecting Masterson and Bailey to stay where they are. The Indians and Reds may not have the resources to sign them to extensions. I think there is a good chance that all three pitchers -- or at least two of the three -- reach the free agent market.
Kershaw is harder to figure out. At one time, it seemed inevitable that he would resign with the Dodgers. However, the two sides have not been able to agree on a long term deal and so one wonders if Kershaw plans to use the free agent market for leverage.
The Red Sox are in a strong financial situation and so if they want to sign Bailey or Masterson, they will likely succeed. Scherzer will likely command a huge contract; the Red Sox are one of the few teams that can afford him. Lester isn't coming cheap anyway. And so even if the Red Sox resign Lester they are taking on significant risk. They might be better off taking on that risk with a slightly younger pitcher, i.e., Masterson or Bailey, or a more dominant one, i.e., Scherzer.
Kershaw is the best of the bunch, worth more than all of them. At some point, however, it becomes counterproductive to sign Kershaw if his demands are exorbitant. But if Kershaw reaches the free agent market, the Red Sox have to seriously consider the possibility of signing the most dominant lefty in the game.
1. I'm not sure I would characterize Scherzer as "more dominant." He had a great year.
2. I'm quite sure that I would not regard Masterson or Bailey as "lower risk." Lester has been good five of six years. Masterson two of
the last three and Bailey the last two in the NL
Central. They may cost less but there is clearly a higher risk of lower performance.
3. As pointed out upthread Kerahaw reportedly declined a $300,000,000 extension. At what point do you consider his demands "exorbitant" enough for the Red Sox to pass?
2. I'm quite sure that I would not regard Masterson or Bailey as "lower risk." Lester has been good five of six years. Masterson two of
the last three and Bailey the last two in the NL
Central. They may cost less but there is clearly a higher risk of lower performance.
3. As pointed out upthread Kerahaw reportedly declined a $300,000,000 extension. At what point do you consider his demands "exorbitant" enough for the Red Sox to pass?
FanSinceBoggs said:
Again, I think you are significantly overrating the Red Sox chances of outbidding the rest of the league for a small handful of elite FA pitchers. Signing a big name guy is certainly possible, but in my opinion, not probable.
First of all, the supply is currently an unknown number, but likely to be less than whatever the current possibilities are, since extensions are still an option.
More importantly, the current MLB landscape isn't the Yankees, the Red Sox, and everyone else. There are a large number of upper/middle class teams that have shown a willingness to make 100M+ commitments. Many of these teams will also likely be more desperate for pitching than the Red Sox will likely be next season, even if the Red Sox lose Lester. The Red Sox are clearly shying away from big, long term contracts if at all possible. Plus, they have never really been willing to do that for pitching.
I'm not sure why all of a sudden the Red Sox will "likely succeed" if they want some of these pitchers. I think it's quite likely they would love those guys on the Red Sox, but also quite likely they aren't going to be the highest bidder. That being said, I still wouldn't extend Lester at all costs a year before FA. Only do it if you get him on a team friendly deal.
snowmanny said:
Let's be fair to the people who are reading the thread and not clicking the link. He didn't turn it down to hold out for more. He turned it down because it would have required a serious commitment and didn't want to make the decision lightly or negotiate during the season. It also states that a large portion of the contract was to go to Kershaw's charity of choice. Let's not make them out to be comic book villains.
Your actual point still stands, though.
radsoxfan said:
True, they have been shying away from big, long term contracts, but that doesn't mean they won't deviate from that plan when quality established starters are available via free agency and the Red Sox have an opening in their rotation. During Henry's ownership, the Red Sox invested 100 million in Dice-K and more recently gave Lackey around 85 million.
If the Red Sox don't deviate from that plan, how would they sign Lester? After all, Lester will want a lucrative, long term deal.
Should the Red Sox give that lucrative long term deal to Lester or to another free agent starter? I'm not sold on the idea that Lester is a better choice than the other free agent starters discussed in this thread.
However, the Red Sox could decide against giving a lucrative, long term deal to ALL of the above. Instead, maybe they will collect the draft pick for Lester, refrain from signing Masterson, Bailey, etc., and keep promoting from within. But I doubt it: the Red Sox are ultimately a big market team--they will likely invest significant resources in a SP prior to the 2015 season.
I don't think the Sox are explicitly shying away from long term contracts, even ones that classify as big. They extended Pedroia long-term to a "big" contract just this past summer. While they are, based on recent evidence, perhaps shying away from backing up Brinks trucks to free agents (a la the Crawford contract) I think they're perfectly willing to sign players long-term for the right price, particularly their own players. They extended Beckett, for better or worse, on a relatively market-price deal. I can see them doing the same for Lester, hopefully with better results since Lester has a better health track record than Beckett did.
What is the right price for Lester?
To me, you have to start by setting the bar at what you want in a championship caliber rotation. With that standard, I classify Lester as usually a very good number 2 who occasionally rises to the occasion and pitches like a number 1 and occasionally regresses to a number 4. So, I think you want to pay him like a number 2, not a number 1. The set of recent signings of number 2 quality starters (Sanchez, Kuroda) seems like it is in the $16 to $18 million a season range rather than the $20 million range. I would limit the years to 6 and hope for only 5 to get it done.
So, I think 5/$90 or 6/$105 is what would be a fair deal for both sides. The leverage is with Lester though, so they'll probably have to go higher.
To me, you have to start by setting the bar at what you want in a championship caliber rotation. With that standard, I classify Lester as usually a very good number 2 who occasionally rises to the occasion and pitches like a number 1 and occasionally regresses to a number 4. So, I think you want to pay him like a number 2, not a number 1. The set of recent signings of number 2 quality starters (Sanchez, Kuroda) seems like it is in the $16 to $18 million a season range rather than the $20 million range. I would limit the years to 6 and hope for only 5 to get it done.
So, I think 5/$90 or 6/$105 is what would be a fair deal for both sides. The leverage is with Lester though, so they'll probably have to go higher.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
There's a big difference between a lot of those contracts and the world we live in now. Most of them came from the Epstein regime before 2012. The only one that didn't is the Pedroia contract, and that is one that is for a premium player at a premium position. With Papi likely leaving soon, Pedroia is going to be the face of the franchise and the contract is universally regarded as being very team friendly.
I think it is an open question whether the current Sox management is willing to give a long contract on terms that aren't as favorable to the team.
Plympton91 said:
I'm not sure why either Kuroda or Sanchez are great comps. Lester is a better pitcher than Kuroda and much younger, but on the other hand Kuroda only got one year. Lester and Sanchez are the same age but Sanchez signed his deal when he was two years younger than Lester would be. Whether the age issue outweighs salary inflation or vice versa I'm not sure. Overall I'd be pretty surprised if Lester didn't get $20m per year from someone if he hits the market. If he signs this winter there should be some sort of pre-FA discount. If they could get him for 6 years at $18m per I'd definitely pull the trigger.
Plympton91 said:
Obviously the trick is figuring out what the expected contract will be for Lester on the open market. Let's say he has another year next year like he did this past year, including a really good performance in the post-season (say the Sox only play one round, he pitches well but they get eliminated).
A workhorse, experienced lefty, with an era around 3.60-3.75 in the AL East, with incredible postseason numbers, at the age of 31 starting the 2015 season…..
Here's a list of the highest paid starting pitchers in the game (Cot's):
Starting pitchers
The highest-paid starting pitchers, by average annual value:
1. Justin Verlander, $25,714,286 (2013-19)
2. Felix Hernandez, $25,000,000 (2013-19)
3. Zack Greinke, $24,500,000 (2013-18)
4. CC Sabathia, $24,400,000 (2012-16)
5. Cole Hamels, $24,000,000 (2013-18)
. . . Cliff Lee, $24,000,000 (2011-15)
7. CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15)
8. Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13)
9. Matt Cain, $21,250,000 (2012-17)
10. Tim Lincecum, $20,250,000 (2012-13)
11. Roy Halladay, $20,000,000 (2011-13)
12. Adam Wainwright, $19,500,000 (2014-18)
13. Carlos Zambrano, $18,300,000 (2008-12)
14. Barry Zito, $18,000,000 (2007-13)
15. Tim Lincecum, $17,500,000 (2014-15)
16. Jake Peavy, $17,333,333 (2010-12)
17. Josh Beckett, $17,000,000 (2011-14)
. . . Jered Weaver, $17,000,000 (2012-16)
19. A.J. Burnett, $16,500,000 (2009-13)
. . . John Lackey, $16,500,000 (2010-14)
21. Justin Verlander, $16,000,000 (2010-14)
. . . Anibal Sanchez, $16,000,000 (2013-17)
. . . Hiroki Kuroda, $16,000,000 (2014)
24. Jason Schmidt, $15,666,667 (2007-09)
25. Felix Hernandez, $15,600,000 (2010-14)
26. C.J. Wilson, $15,500,000 (2012-16)
27. Mike Hampton, $15,125,000 (2001-08)
28. Derek Lowe, $15,000,000 (2009-12)
. . . Hiroki Kuroda, $15,000,000 (2013)
30. Roy Oswalt, $14,600,000 (2007-11)
31. Mark Buehrle, $14,500,000 (2012-15)
. . . Jake Peavy, $14,500,000 (2013-14)
33. Mark Buehrle, $14,000,000 (2008-11)
34. Roy Halladay, $13,333,333 (2008-10)
35. Pedro Martinez, $13,250,000 (2005-08)
. . . Ryan Dempster, $13,250,000 (2013-14)
37. Ryan Dempster, $13,000,000 (2009-12)
. . . John Danks, $13,000,000 (2012-16)
. . . Edwin Jackson, $13,000,000 (2013-16)
. . . Dan Haren, $13,000,000 (2013)
41. Chris Carpenter, $12,700,000 (2008-11)
42. Pedro Martinez, $12,500,000 (1998-2003)
. . . Bronson Arroyo, $12,500,000 (2009-10)
. . . R.A. Dickey, $12,500,000 (2014-15)
It's hard to know exactly where Lester fits in there, isn't it? He's clearly not Verlander or King Felix, but his overall resume is probably more impressive than Cain. I'd think that in this market he'd be looking at 6/120 most likely.
I think I would quibble slightly and say Cain might be worth more than Lester going forward, but I think your end result is spot on - I can't see him wanting any less than $20M/yr, and that he would take six years over seven IS the hometown discount.ivanvamp said:
It seemed high to me when that figure was first thrown around, but with his peers in context (thank you) I think that is the market for this type of pitcher. It underscores the importance of making good on your high-end draft picks - you need to get the Lesters, Buchholzes and Workmans so you don't have to pay full value on the free agent market. While you want all your position players to hit as well, it may be argued that you can replace them more easily (and inexpensively) as a whole then top end starting pitching.
Pitchers are going to get well paid in this market. Its a question of which Lester you think you are getting though. The one who pitched from Sep 2011 - July 2013 was not very good, with a 4.5+ ERA. The one who pitched the final 2 months of 2013 and into the post season is one of the top 5 in MLB.
I remember when Beckett signed an extension in what would have been his last season before being a free agent and the consensus was he left money on the table. I was concerned that maybe he was not feeling very confident about himself and sure enough 2010 was not a very good year for him right from the start. I guess I would feel the same thing about Lester if he left a lot of money on the table now only 1 yr from free agency. If he can pitch the entire season like he did the final 2 months of the season, he is certainly in line for Cole Hamel money on the FA market. Why not go for it. Of course, injury is a risk but Lester has always been durable.
While someone like Pedey is obviously happy in Boston and willing to leave money on the table 2-3 years away from being a free agent, Gammons had said awhile back that he sensed Lester was unhappy here. That was perhaps do in part to the chicken and beer smears and perhaps related to the turmoil that Bobby V brought to the team so may not reflect his current thinking, if indeed he ever was unhappy with Boston as Gammons sensed .
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/11/gammons-on-felger-mazz-i-just-sense-jon-lester-is-so-unhappy-here/
Anyways, with Lester not sounding like a slam dunk to leave money on the table I have to imagine the Red Sox are taking a close look at Tanaka. Expressing an interest in Tanaka could help their negotiations with Lester if indeed he does want an extension.
I remember when Beckett signed an extension in what would have been his last season before being a free agent and the consensus was he left money on the table. I was concerned that maybe he was not feeling very confident about himself and sure enough 2010 was not a very good year for him right from the start. I guess I would feel the same thing about Lester if he left a lot of money on the table now only 1 yr from free agency. If he can pitch the entire season like he did the final 2 months of the season, he is certainly in line for Cole Hamel money on the FA market. Why not go for it. Of course, injury is a risk but Lester has always been durable.
While someone like Pedey is obviously happy in Boston and willing to leave money on the table 2-3 years away from being a free agent, Gammons had said awhile back that he sensed Lester was unhappy here. That was perhaps do in part to the chicken and beer smears and perhaps related to the turmoil that Bobby V brought to the team so may not reflect his current thinking, if indeed he ever was unhappy with Boston as Gammons sensed .
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/11/gammons-on-felger-mazz-i-just-sense-jon-lester-is-so-unhappy-here/
Anyways, with Lester not sounding like a slam dunk to leave money on the table I have to imagine the Red Sox are taking a close look at Tanaka. Expressing an interest in Tanaka could help their negotiations with Lester if indeed he does want an extension.
I would like to see if Bailey has another strong season. He is two years younger than Lester. Sign Bailey to a 5 year deal (after the 2014 season) and the Red Sox would lock him up from age 29 to age 33, which is pretty appealing even if the Red Sox need to include a sixth year. I would hate to lose the lefty (Lester), but younger pitchers like Bailey are less of a risk, and the lefty Owens is on the way.
FanSinceBoggs said:
On the other hand, pitchers who have proved they can succeed in Boston are less of a risk than those who haven't. And I think this difference may trump two years of age.
I'm not sure I buy into the notion that being able to pitch in Boston is some sort of "ability" -- a year ago, people who believed in this supposed ability cited John Lackey as a prime example of someone who lacked it.
I do, however, strongly believe that a club invariably knows more about its own players, and particularly its own pitchers, than it knows about players on other teams. If the FO is bullish on Lester's ability to maintain his health and performance level as he ages, that's an excellent reason to pay a premium price to extend him.
I do, however, strongly believe that a club invariably knows more about its own players, and particularly its own pitchers, than it knows about players on other teams. If the FO is bullish on Lester's ability to maintain his health and performance level as he ages, that's an excellent reason to pay a premium price to extend him.
Really? I thought the common belief was that Lackey was pitching with a bad elbow in 2010 and an extremely bad elbow in 2011, not that he couldn't handle Boston.
You are making his point for him.
You are making his point for him.
- Status