Max Power

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,643
Jon Lester has a thread. James Shields has a thread. Cole Hamels has a thread. Even Brandon McCarthy has a thread. Why none for Scherzer? 

With the report today from Michael Silverman that the Red Sox will pursue him more aggressively should they miss out on Lester, I figured the time was here for just such an action. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere, but I can't read any of the pitching megathreads anymore. 
 
You likely know the resume - one of the best pitchers in the AL over the last two years, Cy winner, younger than Lester. You also probably know that none of the reported offers that anyone has made to Lester will get him signed. Plus his agent, Scott Boras, will probably string this out until mid-January at the earliest.
 
So, two questions:
1) Is the Red Sox' reported interest real, do we think, or just a smokescreen and maybe a favor to Boras (which is a phrase I did not expect to type)
2) In a world where Lester is already in Chicago/Los Angeles/San Francisco/Mystery City, do people think this is a good idea? 
 
I think I know what SoSH's collective answer to #2, but maybe I am wrong.
 

pdub

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2007
474
I was reading over in the Lester thread that journalists believe he'll get 7 years. If Lester starts sniffing 7 years/$160-170M then we might as well see if that money can get us Scherzer. I'll take the one year age difference and the fact that Scherzer has been one of the absolute best the last while. Lester is still great but he hasn't been on the level of Sale, Kershaw, Scherzer, and Hernandez.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,230
Not here
Why none for Scherzer? 
 
 
Because if the Sox were willing to spend what it takes to get Scherzer, why wouldn't they just spend a little less and get Lester?
 
Which is to say, nobody thinks the Sox are going to get involved with Scherzer.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,643
Rasputin said:
 
Because if the Sox were willing to spend what it takes to get Scherzer, why wouldn't they just spend a little less and get Lester?
 
Which is to say, nobody thinks the Sox are going to get involved with Scherzer.
 
If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it has become clear that re-signing Lester is anything but a foregone conclusion, hence my starting the thread.
 
EDIT: And can I please request that this not become a Lester thread? I already know most of the board would prefer to re-sign him, which is why my original post clarified that I'm talking about a scenario in which he signs somewhere else. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,269
Maine
pdub said:
I was reading over in the Lester thread that journalists believe he'll get 7 years. If Lester starts sniffing 7 years/$160-170M then we might as well see if that money can get us Scherzer. I'll take the one year age difference and the fact that Scherzer has been one of the absolute best the last while. Lester is still great but he hasn't been on the level of Sale, Kershaw, Scherzer, and Hernandez.
 
While Scherzer has had an outstanding last couple seasons, and perfectly timed for him to hit the FA market, I think it's still a stretch to put him on a tier with Kershaw and Hernandez or even Sale.  Scherzer is closer to Lester than he is to those guys.
 
I think the conclusion we have to reach based on what we know of the Lester negotiations to this point is that Lester is their primary target.  Scherzer isn't so far ahead of Lester that they don't warrant similar contracts in this market environment.  If they get outbid for the guy they know well, I can't see them spending more money to get the guy they don't know (and thus represents a greater risk in their eyes).
 

swingin val

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
1,162
Minneapolis
Rasputin said:
 
Because if the Sox were willing to spend what it takes to get Scherzer, why wouldn't they just spend a little less and get Lester?
Because if you can get Scherzer for just a little bit more than Lester, you would be a fool to choose the less good pitcher in Lester because of sentimental reasons?

Max Scherzer is absolutely a better bet to live up to his contract if he is only getting a little bit more than Lester.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,916
Rasputin said:
 
Because if the Sox were willing to spend what it takes to get Scherzer, why wouldn't they just spend a little less and get Lester?
 
Which is to say, nobody thinks the Sox are going to get involved with Scherzer.
 
It's entirely possible that a team would place a larger value on the pitcher with the higher K rate. 
 
The Red Sox have a huge gaping hole at the top of their rotation and money to spend.  I think they should bid on an any available ace, and I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't like their chances to win that auction against any team except the Yankees or Dodgers.  And we aren't sure the Yankees and Dodgers are going to be in on Scherzer.
 

Hoplite

lurker
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
Rasputin said:
 
Because if the Sox were willing to spend what it takes to get Scherzer, why wouldn't they just spend a little less and get Lester?
 
Which is to say, nobody thinks the Sox are going to get involved with Scherzer.
 
Theoretically, because Scherzer is the better pitcher. Over the last two seasons, he's pitched more innings with a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc. and he's a year younger. Of course the argument against is that he would cost a draft pick, the Red Sox aren't familiar with him and his higher fly ball profile might not play as well at Fenway than Lester's groundball profile.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,230
Not here
swingin val said:
Because if you can get Scherzer for just a little bit more than Lester, you would be a fool to choose the less good pitcher in Lester because of sentimental reasons?

Max Scherzer is absolutely a better bet to live up to his contract if he is only getting a little bit more than Lester.
 
It's not like Scherzer is a hugely better pitcher than Lester. He's a little bit better and he's going to get paid a little bit more.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,094
Wesport, MA
Hoplite said:
 
Theoretically, because Scherzer is the better pitcher. Over the last two seasons, he's pitched more innings with a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc. and he's a year younger. Of course the argument against is that he would cost a draft pick, the Red Sox aren't familiar with him and his higher fly ball profile might not play as well at Fenway than Lester's groundball profile.
Just to clarify, Jon Lester's GB% has fallen every year since 2010. Last year it was 42.4%. He's not really an elite GB pitcher anymore. Max had a GB% of 36.7%. Since RF is huge in Fenway, I have a hard time seeing Scherzer being particularly penalized for being a flyball pitcher. In fact that's probably a plus. Schilling did well enough with a similar profile.
 

Hoplite

lurker
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
foulkehampshire said:
Just to clarify, Jon Lester's GB% has fallen every year since 2010. Last year it was 42.4%. He's not really an elite GB pitcher anymore. Max had a GB% of 36.7%. Since RF is huge in Fenway, I have a hard time seeing Scherzer being particularly penalized for being a flyball pitcher. In fact that's probably a plus. Schilling did well enough with a similar profile.
 
Oh, well if right field is big in Fenway then surely fly balls won't be an issue.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,140
Cambridge
Rasputin said:
 
It's not like Scherzer is a hugely better pitcher than Lester. He's a little bit better and he's going to get paid a little bit more.
 
I made this point in the Lester thread, but Scherzer is indeed a hugely better pitcher than Lester.  I'd rather Scherzer at 7/170 than Lester at 6/130, for example, and don't think it's that close.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Curious if folks are including post season stats in their Lester-Scherzer comparisons?  Over the course of his career, Scherzer has been mediocre in the post season, whilst Lester has been elite.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,643
threecy said:
Curious if folks are including post season stats in their Lester-Scherzer comparisons?  Over the course of his career, Scherzer has been mediocre in the post season, whilst Lester has been elite.
 
I wouldn't call him mediocre - he's got a 3.73 ERA which is skewed by a couple of ugly starts, some of which came before his dramatic career improvement. Don't forget, too, that he hasn't had a particularly good bullpen backing him up in either of the last two seasons, which I think skews the narrative on him a little bit.
 
(And anyway, are you saying you'd rather have Lester over, say, Clayton Kershaw? Because his postseason numbers aren't that great, either.)
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Nobody seems to  be mentioning the elephant in the room, which is Scherzer's reliance on the slider, which is increasingly understood to be a high-risk pitch. Not that every pitcher who throws a lot of sliders ends up under the knife, of course. But it's a factor. I think if the Sox are more interested in Lester than Scherzer it's not because they're sentimental, nor because they're cheap, but because they think he's a better risk over a long-term deal.
 
As for Scherzer being "hugely better" than Lester, that's a stretch. Here are some career stats (Scherzer first, then Lester):
 
ERA-: 86, 83
FIP-: 81, 83
xFIP-: 84, 88
SIERA: 3.29, 3.72
K/9: 9.59, 8.22
BB/9: 2.82, 3.07
HR/FB: 9.9, 9.4
 
The SIERA and K/9 gaps are sizable, but the others are close, and a few of them favor Lester. If you say that Scherzer is the better pitcher of the two, I'd agree with you. But the margin between the two is not that wide.
 
A year ago, the idea that Scherzer is "hugely" better would have seemed more credible, because he was clearly much better in 2012 and 2013. But Lester has shown that whatever it was that bothered him in 2012, it was not a permanent thing. It may not be realistic to expect him to match his 2014 again, but at least he has shown he is still capable of pitching that well. And Lester 2014 was as good as Max Scherzer has ever been.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Danny_Darwin said:
 
I wouldn't call him mediocre - he's got a 3.73 ERA which is skewed by a couple of ugly starts, some of which came before his dramatic career improvement. Don't forget, too, that he hasn't had a particularly good bullpen backing him up in either of the last two seasons, which I think skews the narrative on him a little bit.
 
(And anyway, are you saying you'd rather have Lester over, say, Clayton Kershaw? Because his postseason numbers aren't that great, either.)
The two main points I was raising were:
a) we shouldn't just look at the baseball card stats; especially considering we're talking about a perennial World Series contender, 1-4 post season starts per season should be included in the analysis of the performance of a player who makes 32 regular season starts
b) post season performance in itself is especially valuable to a perennial World Series contender.
 

Hoplite

lurker
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
Savin Hillbilly said:
Nobody seems to  be mentioning the elephant in the room, which is Scherzer's reliance on the slider, which is increasingly understood to be a high-risk pitch. Not that every pitcher who throws a lot of sliders ends up under the knife, of course. But it's a factor. I think if the Sox are more interested in Lester than Scherzer it's not because they're sentimental, nor because they're cheap, but because they think he's a better risk over a long-term deal.
 
Interesting theory, but curveballs are also considered to be a "high risk" pitch when it comes to pitcher injury. Lester has thrown curveballs on 15.3% of his pitches over his career compared to Scherzer's 15.8% of pitches that have been sliders. But it may be a moot point considering the risk for injury tends to be when a pitcher throws one of those pitches 20% of the time or more.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,140
Cambridge
Savin Hillbilly said:
Nobody seems to  be mentioning the elephant in the room, which is Scherzer's reliance on the slider, which is increasingly understood to be a high-risk pitch. Not that every pitcher who throws a lot of sliders ends up under the knife, of course. But it's a factor. I think if the Sox are more interested in Lester than Scherzer it's not because they're sentimental, nor because they're cheap, but because they think he's a better risk over a long-term deal.
 
As for Scherzer being "hugely better" than Lester, that's a stretch. Here are some career stats (Scherzer first, then Lester):
 
ERA-: 86, 83
FIP-: 81, 83
xFIP-: 84, 88
SIERA: 3.29, 3.72
K/9: 9.59, 8.22
BB/9: 2.82, 3.07
HR/FB: 9.9, 9.4
 
The SIERA and K/9 gaps are sizable, but the others are close, and a few of them favor Lester. If you say that Scherzer is the better pitcher of the two, I'd agree with you. But the margin between the two is not that wide.
 
A year ago, the idea that Scherzer is "hugely" better would have seemed more credible, because he was clearly much better in 2012 and 2013. But Lester has shown that whatever it was that bothered him in 2012, it was not a permanent thing. It may not be realistic to expect him to match his 2014 again, but at least he has shown he is still capable of pitching that well. And Lester 2014 was as good as Max Scherzer has ever been.
 
I put some numbers in the Lester thread; I'll quote a part of that here:
 
 
Last 3 years average WAR: Scherzer 5.6, Lester 2.7
Last 2 years average WAR: Scherzer 6.4, Lester 3.9
Last year WAR: Scherzer 6.0, Lester 4.8
 
Moreover, Scherzer appears to be near the peak of his career, while Lester is past that peak.  Let's be generous and decide that 2012 essentially didn't happen.  Then Lester's WAR by year (over 100 IP) would be 6.1, 6.3, 5.2, 4.4, [omit], 3.0, 4.8.  Scherzer, for comparison?  1.3, 3.3, 1.3, 4.2, 6.7, 6.0.  Scherzer has also thrown over 300 fewer innings at a similar age.  
 
Basically, Scherzer is clearly better over any recent sample you care to pick, is slightly younger in age and almost two seasons younger in innings pitched, and is closer to his peak (if not still at his peak).  I could pick the stats you chose over the past year, two years, and three years and see a similar large gap.  
 
Your career stats are strongly influenced by the Lester of five years ago (which now seems to have been his peak), as well as the Scherzer of five years ago (which was well before his peak). The Lester of five years ago is worth a Scherzer-level contract, I agree.  But that's not the Lester we're buying, which is why there is indeed a very large gap between the two in value.
 

arzjake

Banned
Aug 22, 2005
82
Northern Vermont
Hoplite said:
 
Theoretically, because Scherzer is the better pitcher. Over the last two seasons, he's pitched more innings with a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc. and he's a year younger. Of course the argument against is that he would cost a draft pick, the Red Sox aren't familiar with him and his higher fly ball profile might not play as well at Fenway than Lester's groundball profile.
 
What draft Pick?   The #1 Pick Boston has is 7th overall in 2015. Top 11 picks are protected against any Free Agent signing or so I thought?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
7,063
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
arzjake said:
What draft Pick?   The #1 Pick Boston has is 7th overall in 2015. Top 11 picks are protected against any Free Agent signing or so I thought?
They will still lose a pick .. Either 2,3 or 4 depending on how things are calculated .. Obviously the first is protected but they already will lose picks for Sandoval and Hanley.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Question, when Scherzer went from Arizona to Detroit, part of the story put out by Arizona was that they were worried that he was an arm injury just waiting to happen.  Supposedly his somewhat violent delivery made TJ surgery or the like inevitable.
 
Has his durability since the trade completely silenced that strain of thought?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,269
Maine
Rough Carrigan said:
Question, when Scherzer went from Arizona to Detroit, part of the story put out by Arizona was that they were worried that he was an arm injury just waiting to happen.  Supposedly his somewhat violent delivery made TJ surgery or the like inevitable.
 
Has his durability since the trade completely silenced that strain of thought?
 
If it has, I don't think it should.  It's his shoulder that is at the highest risk, and I think there's plenty of evidence to show that a run of durability isn't proof at all that the shoulder won't eventually break down.  He was never of the quality of Scherzer, but look at Matt Clement.  He didn't have a particularly "risky" delivery, and he had a long run of durability (6 straight 30+ starts/170-200 IP seasons before the Sox signed him).  His shoulder imploded by the end of year one of his deal and he never pitched again after the second.
 
Obviously, no one is going to walk away from signing Scherzer exclusively because of shoulder concerns that have not manifested in the slightest (that we know of), but it is a viable enough risk to see why the Red Sox would pursue the supposedly inferior pitcher of whom they have intimate knowledge more aggressively than they'd chase Scherzer.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
If it has, I don't think it should.  It's his shoulder that is at the highest risk, and I think there's plenty of evidence to show that a run of durability isn't proof at all that the shoulder won't eventually break down.  He was never of the quality of Scherzer, but look at Matt Clement.  He didn't have a particularly "risky" delivery, and he had a long run of durability (6 straight 30+ starts/170-200 IP seasons before the Sox signed him).  His shoulder imploded by the end of year one of his deal and he never pitched again after the second.
 
Obviously, no one is going to walk away from signing Scherzer exclusively because of shoulder concerns that have not manifested in the slightest (that we know of), but it is a viable enough risk to see why the Red Sox would pursue the supposedly inferior pitcher of whom they have intimate knowledge more aggressively than they'd chase Scherzer.
 
Does throwing the slider endanger his shoulder more than his elbow? It seems like the history you point out that is worrying is used by many as a strength when it comes to re-signing Lester. Other than knowing Lester's arm better, this looks like a good reasoning for the FO line on why they don't want to give a SP over 30 yrs of age a 5+ year deal.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
6,183
Boston, MA
If the Red Sox really want to sign Max, they'll offer a monogrammed shirt with a couple of exclamation points and a pirate flag on it.
 
I'm not sure how you'd look into it, but it seems like every time you hear about a pitcher with a "violent delivery" being an injury risk, the injury happens in the first couple of years of their career. Kids like Strasburg and Fernandez seem to blow out their elbows by 25, but once they get past that point they're no more likely to get injured than any other pitcher.
 

doc

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,322
Max Power said:
I'm not sure how you'd look into it, but it seems like every time you hear about a pitcher with a "violent delivery" being an injury risk, the injury happens in the first couple of years of their career. Kids like Strasburg and Fernandez seem to blow out their elbows by 25, but once they get past that point they're no more likely to get injured than any other pitcher.
What you describe is the injury nexus which states that a majority of pitching injuries occur before age 23 and then drop off until they are in their 30's.
 
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1658
 
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22227
 
Pitching is an unnatural act and will eventually hurt you, I believe that there are no "safe" pitching mechanics and pitchers need to find a combination of what works for them and what doesn't hurt (or hurts less).  
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,916
200 seems plausible. Lester got 6x25.8 or so. Basically one more year and one more million AAV (rounded up to 27) -which to me seems conservative- gets 7/189. I'm betting on Boras to get it to 200.

Edit: I think that before free agency most fans would have predicted that Scherzer would sign for at least a year more than Lester and also a higher AAV.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
snowmanny said:
200 seems plausible. Lester got 6x25.8 or so. Basically one more year and one more million AAV (rounded up to 27) -which to me seems conservative- gets 7/189. I'm betting on Boras to get it to 200.

Edit: I think that before free agency most fans would have predicted that Scherzer would sign for at least a year more than Lester and also a higher AAV.
 
When comparing Max to what other FA top line pitchers have received as well as to Lester then 200 doesn't seem out of the question. The part I am struggling to answer is who is actually going to pay that? There is also the fact of the pick associated with him also which may have a minor impact on the price (by no means as much as on Drew/Morales though obviously).
 
Dodgers if they really do have a limitless budget. But they are paying Kershaw and Greinke a ton already to be aces, and Ryu isn't too far behind. Plenty of money tied up elsewhere.
 
Can SF go that high? Obviously they will go the same money they offered Lester, but do they have any more in them?
 
Sox have shown they won't pay above what they believe is the value of the player, and I can't see them valuing Max that high.
 
Yankees? I can't see them going there this time. Never say never, but I can't see it.
 
Detroit will be in the mix. They have a LOT of money tied up already in ageing players though. Miggy, Verlander (144mill plus 22 vesting still left), just paid their DH a shedload. Maybe they pay scherzer and let Price walk. Or maybe they save their pennies to pay Price. Could go either way. 200 is a LOT more than the 144 they offered pre-season.
 
Who else is a player here that will even consider going north of 180?
 
St Louis maybe comes from the clouds?
 

Moosbrugger

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
340
wrong side of the bay
I wonder about Toronto. Ownership is certainly wealthy enough to afford it. Trouble is, I suspect they would have to be the high bidder by a lot to attract a high-end free agent like Scherzer.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
7,063
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Moosbrugger said:
I wonder about Toronto. Ownership is certainly wealthy enough to afford it. Trouble is, I suspect they would have to be the high bidder by a lot to attract a high-end free agent like Scherzer.
 
The Blue Jays have a (much criticized) team policy of no contracts longer than 5 years. In fact, Boras himself ripped Toronto for this yesterday, Like all "policies" I'm sure they would break it for a player they really, really liked. But I think they liked Lester just as much and dropped out pretty quickly. The value of the Canadian dollar is starting to approach a zone where it's a bottom line concern for the team as well. I'm not suggesting they are in any kind of trouble but a 200 million contract for Scherzer is 220-230 million from the Blue Jays perspective.
 
Even if Boston decides to pursue Max - and I can't really see them giving him a 7/180 contract - the real difficulty would be the timing. Boras will string this out until February - long after most of the other more attractive options will be off the board. If Scherzer is Plan B there probably won't be a Plan C or D and they will have to go all in.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,627
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
 
The Blue Jays have a (much criticized) team policy of no contracts longer than 5 years. In fact, Boras himself ripped Toronto for this yesterday, Like all "policies" I'm sure they would break it for a player they really, really liked. But I think they liked Lester just as much and dropped out pretty quickly. The value of the Canadian dollar is starting to approach a zone where it's a bottom line concern for the team as well. I'm not suggesting they are in any kind of trouble but a 200 million contract for Scherzer is 220-230 million from the Blue Jays perspective.
 
Even if Boston decides to pursue Max - and I can't really see them giving him a 7/180 contract - the real difficulty would be the timing. Boras will string this out until February - long after most of the other more attractive options will be off the board. If Scherzer is Plan B there probably won't be a Plan C or D and they will have to go all in.
 Boras has the balls of a cat burglar, but I wonder what would happen if you laid absolute top dollar on the line and gave him and Max 1 week to say yes or no. By 'top dollar', I mean a realistic look at the market after a reset for the Lester contract, not a number dictated by the JH discipline.
 
This assumes that the RS in fact value Scherzer as being in Greinke-Kershaw territory, which may not be the case.
 
I really don't want to see them utilizing  Betts/Swihart/XMan talent to extract Hamels from The Rube.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
7,063
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Otis Foster said:
 Boras has the balls of a cat burglar, but I wonder what would happen if you laid absolute top dollar on the line and gave him and Max 1 week to say yes or no. By 'top dollar', I mean a realistic look at the market after a reset for the Lester contract, not a number dictated by the JH discipline.
 
This assumes that the RS in fact value Scherzer as being in Greinke-Kershaw territory, which may not be the case.
 
I really don't want to see them utilizing  Betts/Swihart/XMan talent to extract Hamels from The Rube.
 
This might work if they were the only team in the race - but the Giants and possibly the MFY could be in as well. Al long as Boras has options he will just laugh at any deadline offers. Hell, he doesn't even need options to string out the negotiations - what with the ubiquitous Mystery Team.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
10,775
The Coney Island of my mind
Otis Foster said:
 Boras has the balls of a cat burglar, but I wonder what would happen if you laid absolute top dollar on the line and gave him and Max 1 week to say yes or no. By 'top dollar', I mean a realistic look at the market after a reset for the Lester contract, not a number dictated by the JH discipline.
 
This assumes that the RS in fact value Scherzer as being in Greinke-Kershaw territory, which may not be the case.
 
I really don't want to see them utilizing  Betts/Swihart/XMan talent to extract Hamels from The Rube.
If the Lester negotiations are any guide, the latter almost certainly prevents the former from occurring.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
8,889
NJ
I don't see why capping Lester's value at 135 precludes them from paying Scherzer more. He's a much better pitcher.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
4The issue isn't with going past what they offered Lester, though. It's that they assign a value they aren't willing to exceed and with the top free agents, that is often something short of what the market will bear. If Scherzer is looking for the biggest contract possible it won't be from the Red Sox. Signing in Boston will mean leaving money on the table.

Given the willingness to go 6/135 for Lester I wouldn't be surprised to hear rumors of something like 6/150 or 7/175. Boras will find a better offer, though.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
NJ_Sox_Fan said:
I don't see why capping Lester's value at 135 precludes them from paying Scherzer more. He's a much better pitcher.
 
I guess this depends on how you define "much better", and also where your zoom is set. In 2014, Lester was slightly better. Over the past 2-3 years, Scherzer has been significantly better. Over their careers, they have been virtually identical. I think most people would agree on preferring Scherzer, but "much better" sounds like a stretch to me.
 
As to your first sentence, of course it doesn't preclude them from paying Scherzer more than 135, but since the market went $20M beyond their limit on Lester, what's to prevent it from going that far beyond their limit on Scherzer?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,230
Not here
NJ_Sox_Fan said:
I don't see why capping Lester's value at 135 precludes them from paying Scherzer more. He's a much better pitcher.
 
The thing is, for the Sox to sign him, they have to value him not just more than Lester, but more than the contract Lester got that wasn't what they valued Lester at.
 

lxt

lurker
Sep 12, 2012
525
Massachusetts
Not to be facetious or anything but for the money Boras is asking for would it not be easier and more frugal of the Sox to just buy Tampa Bay? I can't see them shelling out $200million for Max when they topped out at $135million for Lester. Lester was someone with whom the Sox were familiar and they had trust in his abilities/capabilities yet would not break their "cut off point". I don't see Max being worth that much more to the Sox. It comes down to what Max would be worth to the franchise. The Sox have a Plan B which they've begun to implement and I doubt Max is part of that plan.
 
Edit: A most egregious usage of the English language: facetious not fastidious
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,916
Snodgrass'Muff said:
4The issue isn't with going past what they offered Lester, though. It's that they assign a value they aren't willing to exceed and with the top free agents, that is often something short of what the market will bear. If Scherzer is looking for the biggest contract possible it won't be from the Red Sox. Signing in Boston will mean leaving money on the table.

Given the willingness to go 6/135 for Lester I wouldn't be surprised to hear rumors of something like 6/150 or 7/175. Boras will find a better offer, though.
Why is this true?  They just signed three free agents, two of them to huge contracts.  Is there any evidence that any of them left money on the table?  I doubt the Red Sox will sign Scherzer, but the Red Sox fairly regularly outbid everyone else.    
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,087
One thing working in the Sox favor for Scherzer is there is now one less team to compete with (the Cubs who signed Lester).
 
Personally, I'd do something like $135/5 or $150/6 or $160/7, which I'd think is somewhat consistent with what the Sox would offer.
 
Another concern - in the unlikely event that the Sox are able to sign Scherzer, is it actually possible for them to get back under the Luxury Tax threshold in 2016?  We don't want the team to be in a position where they have to do a Punto 2.0 trade in a year (we were incredibly lucky find a sucker to take the other side of that trade).  That has to start being a pretty big factor for ownership to ponder.
 
Edit: never mind, just saw Boras' comments.  he's looking for something similar or greater than Kershaw's $215M.  I would put the Sox' chances at something close to 0%.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,916
ALiveH said:
One thing working in the Sox favor for Scherzer is there is now one less team to compete with (the Cubs who signed Lester).
 
Personally, I'd do something like $135/5 or $150/6 or $160/7, which I'd think is somewhat consistent with what the Sox would offer.
 
Another concern - in the unlikely event that the Sox are able to sign Scherzer, is it actually possible for them to get back under the Luxury Tax threshold in 2016?  We don't want the team to be in a position where they have to do a Punto 2.0 trade in a year (we were incredibly lucky find a sucker to take the other side of that trade).  That has to start being a pretty big factor for ownership to ponder.
 
Edit: never mind, just saw Boras' comments.  he's looking for something similar or greater than Kershaw's $215M.  I would put the Sox' chances at something close to 0%.
They're 4-5Million under the threshold now and have Napoli(16), Victorino(13), Masterson(9.5), Porcello(12.5) , Mujica(4.5) and a few others going off the books, so they could sign another mega-contract and get back under in 2016. That wouldn't leave a lot of breathing room or flexibility, although the same could have been said if they'd signed Lester at 22.5.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,596
ALiveH said:
 
Personally, I'd do something like $135/5 or $150/6 or $160/7, which I'd think is somewhat consistent with what the Sox would offer.
  
There's zero chance he would accept any of these.  It's like saying you would trade Brock Holt, Anthony Ranuado, and Shane Victorino for Mike Trout.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
How would you rate Boras' chances of getting what he's looking for?
I'm not saying he's going to crack $200 but how likely is he to end up at a number the Sox are comfortable with?