Lester: Stop Believing What You Read on Twitter.

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Let's assume Lester would be taking slightly less to come back to the Red Sox. Why wouldn't he demand a NTC if so? And if JH only went down there to kiss his ring & offer the NTC clause as an extra bonus, he shouldn't have wasted his jet fuel. I have to think Henry went there to give Lester the best offer he could give and lay out the case why he should come back as well as do some groveling. No?
 
Edit: Punctuation.

No.  John Henry is not going to meet with Lester to grovel.  Or kiss his ring.
 
Again, they have a special history together, and this is going to be a "relationship" meeting.  It's not going to be some type of nuts and bolts negotiation, because neither of them do that.  And, at very worst, they're going to meet face to face to ultimately wish each other the best going forward.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Point of order here: The meeting has already taken place. It was Friday
 

According to multiple major league sources, Red Sox principal owner John Henry flew to the Atlanta area Friday to personally visit with free agent pitcher Jon Lester.
With Lester on the cusp of making a decision as to where he might sign, Henry´s visit was thought to be a chance for the owner to re-emphasize the Red Sox´ interest in signing the lefty. It was the second time Henry has met with Lester at the pitcher´s home during the free agent process, although the previous get-together was with other members of Sox´ownership.
 

 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/12/06/sources-john-henry-makes-trip-to-visit-jon-lester/

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Bronson Arroyo would have something to say about personal guarantees.

 
WTF? Arroyo made it very clear after he was traded that there were no informal promises by anyone he'd stay in a Red Sox uniform after he signed the deal that made him trade bait.

 

[DJnVa]

Maybe because the Red Sox don't give NTCs and it would set a bad precedence.

 
The last 2 players signed, you know, last month, both got some form of NTCs.

 

[Carroll Hardy]

I believe John Henry now knows whether he will sign Lester. The team can proceed into the Winter meetings with that information and execute Plan A or Plan B, without having to disclose their strategy.

 

[4-6-3]

I believe John Henry now knows whether he will sign Lester. The team can proceed into the Winter meetings with that information and execute Plan A or Plan B, without having to disclose their strategy.

Excellent point.

 

[keninten]

No.  John Henry is not going to meet with Lester to grovel.  Or kiss his ring.
 
Again, they have a special history together, and this is going to be a "relationship" meeting.  It's not going to be some type of nuts and bolts negotiation, because neither of them do that.  And, at very worst, they're going to meet face to face to ultimately wish each other the best going forward.

Amen The speculation in this thread is ridiculous. I feel I`m being buried in the sandbox with catshit. 

 

[StuckOnYouk]

I believe John Henry now knows whether he will sign Lester. The team can proceed into the Winter meetings with that information and execute Plan A or Plan B, without having to disclose their strategy.

100% agreed

 

[Sampo Gida]

 
He is, by far, the best owner in Red Sox history. I just think it's surprising that he's going to meet with Lester. If he was instrumental in Lester's cancer treatment and how it was handled with his family, it makes complete sense. But he doesn't ordinarily seem like the guy that you send out to meet with a free agent. Perhaps, because of their special relationship, this is a different case.
 
Article with mention of the aforementioned story from earlier:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/09/02/lester_diagnosed_with_cancer/?page=full

 
 
Henrry supposedly went out to meet Vairitek and Teixeira in 2008, so its not the first time
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3780408

 

[Tito's Pullover]

Even if they won't give a full no trade, they should give a limited one until the time his 10/5 right would have kicked in, had they not traded him. Then turn it into a full NTC after that. "Thanks for letting us trade you and coming back. Now proceed as you were. In the meantime you can pick 10 teams every season until then that we can't trade you to." Essentially the same thing they just gave Pedroia.

I've read something along these lines suggested a couple of times and it doesn't make much sense to me.  Lester has a little over 8 years of service time - are we really trading him in the first two years of the deal? At that point just give him the full NTC starting day one.

 

[MakMan44]

I've read something along these lines suggested a couple of times and it doesn't make much sense to me.  Lester has a little over 8 years of service time - are we really trading him in the first two years of the deal? At that point just give him the full NTC starting day one.

No, but he needs 5 years with the Sox again because he was traded this season. 

 

[soxhop411]

“@pgammo: Henry making extra push to entice Lester? Great Edes work. Henry really cares. Pedroia recruits. But this could go to Wednesday.”

 

[Tito's Pullover]

No, but he needs 5 years with the Sox again because he was traded this season. 

I'm aware. I was responding to the idea that the Sox give Lester some kind of gimmicky NTC that essentially restores his 10/5 NTC as if he had never left the team.  Note the bolded below:
 

Even if they won't give a full no trade, they should give a limited one until the time his 10/5 right would have kicked in, had they not traded him.

That would cover the first two years of the deal.  I guess this would allow the Sox to include Lester in some sort of salary-slashing Punto Trade 2.0, but I honestly don't think we'll ever see that again.  Even A-Rod wasn't traded until after year 3.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Pedroia has a full NTC. This line of discussion is needless.

 

[g0wave]

Pedroia has a full NTC. This line of discussion is needless.

Pedroia also has a highly team friendly deal.  The possibility of the contract becoming an albatross, and the need for a trade, is far less given the financials of the deal.   
 
It's not the same situation.  
 
<edit/typo>

 

[barbed wire Bob]

Pedroia has a full NTC. This line of discussion is needless.

Nit: Per Cot's Contracts, it's limited no-trade protection.

I completely agree with your second sentence.

 

[MakMan44]

I'm aware. I was responding to the idea that the Sox give Lester some kind of gimmicky NTC that essentially restores his 10/5 NTC as if he had never left the team.  Note the bolded below:
 
That would cover the first two years of the deal.  I guess this would allow the Sox to include Lester in some sort of salary-slashing Punto Trade 2.0, but I honestly don't think we'll ever see that again.  Even A-Rod wasn't traded until after year 3.

Oh, I missed the "would have" in Pap's post. Sorry. 

 

[Reverend]

Nit: Per Cot's Contracts, it's limited no-trade protection.

I completely agree with your second sentence.

 
True. Bradford has reported it as being a full no-trade clause though and further has claimed that Varitek had one as well. I'm not actually sure where this information comes from and how to check what's authoritative at this point--anyone know?
 
That said, one thing I'm sure of is that the last three topics discussed in this thread--1) There is no good reason for Henry to visit Lester; 2) Henry visiting a player during negotiations is unprecedented; and 2) The Red Sox have a strict NTC policy--have all been demonstrated to be false. That might be some  kind of record.
 
It should give some people pause about their posts, I hope, if they suddenly realize they're just yapping. Maybe we should require link sourcing on all things Lester until this plays out...

 

[IdiotKicker]

 
True. Bradford has reported it as being a full no-trade clause though and further has claimed that Varitek had one as well. I'm not actually sure where this information comes from and how to check what's authoritative at this point--anyone know?

 
I believe that NTCs are not required reporting when teams sign contracts, as they have no impact on CBT calculations. So as a result, you tend to see much of this information blurred for two reasons:
 
-teams don't want other players to know the full extent of NTC provisions that are given
-agents want other players to know they were able to negotiate NTC provisions into a contract
 
Because most players don't receive a full NTC, but rather between 10-20 teams they are able to select on an annual basis, there is some value to both sides in letting this remain as ambiguous as possible.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Nit: Per Cot's Contracts, it's limited no-trade protection.

I completely agree with your second sentence.

 
Keep in mind that Pedroia will have full 10/5 rights in 2 years anyway, which may explain why such an "exception" was made. The odds of him being traded in the first 3 years of his new deal were slim to none anyway, so I'm not sure the Sox really saw it as much of a concession.
 
With Lester, I believe it would be different. As he was traded, I think he'd need to complete 5 years before he could activate his 10/5. That seems like it would be more of a "violation" of said policy.

 

[barbed wire Bob]

True. Bradford has reported it as being a full no-trade clause though and further has claimed that Varitek had one as well. I'm not actually sure where this information comes from and how to check what's authoritative at this point--anyone know?
 
That said, one thing I'm sure of is that the last three topics discussed in this thread--1) There is no good reason for Henry to visit Lester; 2) Henry visiting a player during negotiations is unprecedented; and 2) The Red Sox have a strict NTC policy--have all been demonstrated to be false. That might be some  kind of record.
 
It should give some people pause about their posts, I hope, if they suddenly realize they're just yapping. Maybe we should require link sourcing on all things Lester until this plays out...

. At the time of the extension ESPN, MassLive and Boston.com reported the contract had a limited NTC however, Bradford and MLB Trade Rumors reported it as a full NTC. I went with Cot's since, historically, it's been the most accurate. Bottom line: there is no authoritative source of information so take any reports of NTC's fwiw.

 

[jimbobim]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  38s38 seconds ago
An executive not involved in the Lester bidding predicts he will get seven years: "Book it," the exec said. Make sense; likely separator.
0 replies1 retweet0 favorites

 Reply
 Retweeted1
 Favorite
 

 

[MakMan44]

I think that was always going to be the deciding factor. I personally hope that it's the Sox that go 7, but there's a lot of room to argue that they should move on. 

 

[soxhop411]

- I would be fine doing an option year based on IP

 

[67WasBest]

I'm wondering if Lester has already chosen Boston and the delay is to give BC more time to close the final deals?  This would be done to keep their strategy under wraps until all the deals were set.  They then would announce all deals within a day of each other and the makeover is complete.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

So what are we talking here, 7 years is going to run you $161 - $175 million, right? Isn't this getting easy to walk away from?

I'm wondering if the "money isn't everything" talk was an indication that he would take a smaller AAV for a longer commitment. $145-150M over 7 years? If it's $160M+ I'd prefer to see the FO say all the right things as he signs with the LAD.

 

[E5 Yaz]

So what are we talking here, 7 years is going to run you $161 - $175 million, right? Isn't this getting easy to walk away from?

 
I think we've reached the point of no return for someone. No matter what the Red Sox do at this point, there'll be a healthy percentage of second guessers claiming they either paid too much or didn't go the extra mile. JWH's visit, symbolically at least, indicates the length of which the Sox were willing to go. To "walk away" now puts them in the position of saying that Lester's team went too far with their "demands" ... to which the answer will always be "and who's fault is that for letting it get this far?"
 
Personally, I'd be more interested is seeing how they compensate for not getting him back. I'd be fine with them walking away from it. It comes down to whether they can bring themselves to make that decision. 

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I think we've reached the point of no return for someone. No matter what the Red Sox do at this point, there'll be a healthy percentage of second guessers claiming they either paid too much or didn't go the extra mile. JWH's visit, symbolically at least, indicates the length of which the Sox were willing to go. To "walk away" now puts them in the position of saying that Lester's team went too far with their "demands" ... to which the answer will always be "and who's fault is that for letting it get this far?"
 
Personally, I'd be more interested is seeing how they compensate for not getting him back. I'd be fine with them walking away from it. It comes down to whether they can bring themselves to make that decision. 

I'm an old time "hate to see guys who come up with the team, do well, and have to go away" type. But I'm getting sick of this. There's due diligence and there's hand wringing over the 9th and 10th items on your pro-con list. I still want him to return, but probably down to about 60 - 40 hoping he does. 7 years could flip that. 
 
Sorry about the gamethread post. 

 

[VTSox]

The point is that they have an in house policy of not giving full NTCs. They will offer partial ones in certain circumstances, but going back at least until Theo took over, they don't do it. They took a similar approach with Pedroia, who was signing a below market deal and they wouldn't even give him one.

If you would like to make n argument they should abandon this organizational philosophy - in general or simply in this case - by all means. But I'm sure Lester is aware of how they work with NTCs and it would be a good faith type of thing. I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense, but you're free to disagree.

 
Didn't this policy have to do with Manny's contract provision that said he'd get a no-trade clause if any other Red Sox player did, and they new ownership (at the time) wanted to get out from his $20M salary, so they refused to give anyone else a no-trade while he was under contract.  Schilling had a hand-shake agreement, but now that Manny is off the books, is it still their policy?

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
True. Bradford has reported it as being a full no-trade clause though and further has claimed that Varitek had one as well. I'm not actually sure where this information comes from and how to check what's authoritative at this point--anyone know?
 
That said, one thing I'm sure of is that the last three topics discussed in this thread--1) There is no good reason for Henry to visit Lester; 2) Henry visiting a player during negotiations is unprecedented; and 2) The Red Sox have a strict NTC policy--have all been demonstrated to be false. That might be some  kind of record.
 
It should give some people pause about their posts, I hope, if they suddenly realize they're just yapping. Maybe we should require link sourcing on all things Lester until this plays out...

 
I am pretty sure Varitek's had a unique vesting contingency and wasn't just automatic. Respectfully, regarding your request for links and less speculation, there is the Lester news thread.

 

[DJnVa]

I'm wondering if the "money isn't everything" talk was an indication that he would take a smaller AAV for a longer commitment. $145-150M over 7 years? If it's $160M+ I'd prefer to see the FO say all the right things as he signs with the LAD.

 
If you're good with $150/7 why does $160/7 mean no? In a world where Andrew Miller just got $9 million a year, is that extra $1.5 million a year a big deal?
 
I mean, maybe it is, and once we're over $150 million you have a line, but is it the actual outlay per season, or something else?

 

[Yaz4Ever]

 
If you're good with $150/7 why does $160/7 mean no? In a world where Andrew Miller just got $9 million a year, is that extra $1.5 million a year a big deal?
 
I mean, maybe it is, and once we're over $150 million you have a line, but is it the actual outlay per season, or something else?

Honestly, I think $150 is an overpay. I was saying that maybe this was his line of thinking.

You've got to draw a line somewhere. My line would be 6/$120M, but if rumored offers and his rumored insistence on a 7th year are to be believed my offer won't come close.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think we're nuts to want the FO to sign any pitcher for more than 4 years. 5 years, if they're 28 or under.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Where is it suggested that Lester wanted seven years? There have been a few reports suggesting he was looking for 6/150 but I have seen nothing attributing a seventh year demand to Lester's camp?

 

[NoXInNixon]

 
If you're good with $150/7 why does $160/7 mean no? In a world where Andrew Miller just got $9 million a year, is that extra $1.5 million a year a big deal?
 
I mean, maybe it is, and once we're over $150 million you have a line, but is it the actual outlay per season, or something else?

$1.5M a year may not seem like a lot, but when you have to fill 25 roster spots it is. Even if a lot of them are pre-arbitration types.

 

[barbed wire Bob]

Where is it suggested that Lester wanted seven years? There have been a few reports suggesting he was looking for 6/150 but I have seen nothing attributing a seventh year demand to Lester's camp?

  

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  38s38 seconds ago
An executive not involved in the Lester bidding predicts he will get seven years: "Book it," the exec said. Make sense; likely separator.
0 replies1 retweet0 favorites

 Reply
 Retweeted1
 Favorite

It's pure speculation from an executive not involved in the bidding process. For all we know the executive in question could be an executive chef or some guy working in marketing for John Deere.

 

[soxhop411]

“@nickcafardo: The Levinsons, Jon Lester’s agents, are here. Expecting to hear on Lester’s decision thus week.”

 

[Rasputin]

“@nickcafardo: The Levinsons, Jon Lester’s agents, are here. Expecting to hear on Lester’s decision thus week.”

 
Isn't that what they said last week?
 
I want it to be over. I want to know if I should be happy, pissed, or meh, and mostly, I want to be able to move on to the next thing, because this thing has taken freakin' forever.

 

[MakMan44]

I think Cafardo means at the Winter Meetings this time. 

 

[Al Zarilla]

“@nickcafardo: The Levinsons, Jon Lester’s agents, are here. Expecting to hear on Lester’s decision thus week.”

"Here" is Boston, I assume? If they're in Boston, and Cafardo thinks that's meaningful, does that mean a Sox signing? Thus week. Why do these clowns misspell so much on Twitter? Haste makes waste, I guess.
 
Edit, Makman is smarter than I am (at winter meetings). 

 

[lxt]

"Here" is Boston, I assume? If they're in Boston, and Cafardo thinks that's meaningful, does that mean a Sox signing? Thus week. Why do these clowns misspell so much on Twitter? Haste makes waste, I guess.
 
Edit, Makman is smarter than I am (at winter meetings). 

Maybe but I think he just reads longer(;-)

 

[MakMan44]

Maybe but I think he just reads longer(;-)

Thank.....you?
 
Seriously though, I'm not surprised it went over people's heads. It took me a minute to remember about them too. 

 

[InsideTheParker]

Thank.....you?
 
Seriously though, I'm not surprised it went over people's heads. It took me a minute to remember about them too. 

mlbn is "covering" the winter meetings starting tonight.

 

[Manramsclan]

 
Keep in mind that Pedroia will have full 10/5 rights in 2 years anyway, which may explain why such an "exception" was made. The odds of him being traded in the first 3 years of his new deal were slim to none anyway, so I'm not sure the Sox really saw it as much of a concession.
 
With Lester, I believe it would be different. As he was traded, I think he'd need to complete 5 years before he could activate his 10/5. That seems like it would be more of a "violation" of said policy.

 
I see what you are saying, but if the Red Sox hadn't traded him and then he re-signed with the Sox he would be in line for 10/5 rights after this coming season anyway.  It seems to me that this would be more of a "reinstatement" of those rights than a straight No Trade clause.
 
Then again, maybe they saw ancillary value in the fact that they would avoid no-trade rights if they traded them and then were able to re-sign him,but I doubt that.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

 
True. Bradford has reported it as being a full no-trade clause though and further has claimed that Varitek had one as well. I'm not actually sure where this information comes from and how to check what's authoritative at this point--anyone know?
 
That said, one thing I'm sure of is that the last three topics discussed in this thread--1) There is no good reason for Henry to visit Lester; 2) Henry visiting a player during negotiations is unprecedented; and 2) The Red Sox have a strict NTC policy--have all been demonstrated to be false. That might be some  kind of record.
 
It should give some people pause about their posts, I hope, if they suddenly realize they're just yapping. Maybe we should require link sourcing on all things Lester until this plays out...

The Red Sox have come up with a few ways around their No Trade Policy. One of them was that any player that has been with the team for 7 consecutive years that also made their MLB debut with that team will get a full no trade clause. I believe this was what gave the NTC to Varitek but not Manny. I believe the other one was something silly with Dice-K regarding making their MLB debut with the Red Sox after playing in Japan or something weird like that.
 
With Pedroia, I wouldn't be surprised if they said that the "Varitek clause" applied, or if they gave him a NTC fro the first few years until he was 10/5 eligible.
 
Edit: It's 8 years as stipulated in the Varitek contract: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/12/24/sox_have_deal_to_keep_varitek/?page=full
Edit #2: Matsuzaka Clause is: he clause, according to a source familiar with it, requires three conditions. The first is that a player must come from a foreign league. Second, he has to sign a six-year deal. And third, his first day of service in a Red Sox uniform has to come in a major-league game. Matsuzaka, of course, meets all those conditions and thus he cannot be traded during the term of his contract without his consent. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2006/12/matsuzaka_has_full_no_trade_clause

 

[soxhop411]

“@jaysonst: Exec of team in Jon Lester hunt says he expects Lester talks will come into clearer focus by end of day Monday. Wouldn’t elaborate.”

 

[IpswichSox]

@JimBowden_ESPN: According to a player...Buster Posey joined the Giants brass in their meeting w/Jon Lester and was really impressive #Giants #Lester

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Regarding "respect" and other things that might lure Lester back here, what sort of things should the Red Sox be putting on (or leaving off) the table?
 
Possibilities include:
 
- A seventh year, either guaranteed or vesting.
 
- Partial or full no-trade clause.
 
- Sizable annual donations to Lester's charity. Not sure what's reasonable here. Seven figures? Two million? Five million? A percentage of the gate or concessions on home games Lester starts? Two things to note are, it's obviously for a good cause, and it's money that doesn't count against the luxury tax. Even if it doesn't wind up in Lester's pocket. Although it's hard to guess if this would be viewed as generous or manipulative.
 
- Events and/or free advertising for Lester's charity, as someone mentioned. 

 

[Sampo Gida]

Regarding "respect" and other things that might lure Lester back here, what sort of things should the Red Sox be putting on (or leaving off) the table?
 
Possibilities include:
 
- A seventh year, either guaranteed or vesting.
 
- Partial or full no-trade clause.
 
- Sizable annual donations to Lester's charity. Not sure what's reasonable here. Seven figures? Two million? Five million? A percentage of the gate or concessions on home games Lester starts? Two things to note are, it's obviously for a good cause, and it's money that doesn't count against the luxury tax. Even if it doesn't wind up in Lester's pocket. Although it's hard to guess if this would be viewed as generous or manipulative.
 
- Events and/or free advertising for Lester's charity, as someone mentioned. 

 
Speaking in general about these charities, not Lesters specifically, it is not a sure thing that all the athletes charities money ends up going to good causes.
 
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9109024/top-athletes-charities-often-measure-charity-experts-say-efficient-effective-use-money
 
Thats said, it may very well be that in Lesters case that it is,  probably most likely given his experience with the cause, but I am not sure this is allowable under the CBA, or how important it would be to Lesters decision making process
 
The 7th year and full NTC are surely positives for Lester, and a 7th year could lower the AAV which would be a positive for the Red Sox in the short term,

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I don't see any reason why this has to be in the contract language to be an effective part of the deal.
 
​When Curt Schilling was traded and signed an extension with the Red Sox, I recall that he made a sizable donation to the Jimmy Fund and the Red Sox owners made substantial contributions to Curt's favorite charities--the ALS Association and SHADE Foundation. 
 
I can't find a link. I could be misremembering. It was a long time ago.

 

[Rasputin]

“@jaysonst: Exec of team in Jon Lester hunt says he expects Lester talks will come into clearer focus by end of day Monday. Wouldn’t elaborate.”

So someone put a deadline on an offer. Maybe us, definitely one of the primary contenders.